Michael Moore’s “Sicko”
When the 208 Commission, the Blue Ribbon panel looking at health care reform in Colorado, held a meeting Monday morning, no reporter took the time to attend — and apparently no editor found it interesting enough to spring someone loose to be there.
What a shame. In our democracy, the involvement and reporting by a free press is critical to not only keeping the public and the voters informed but also to keeping the government committees and commissions, like this one, accountable to the people.
You fell down on the job. The issue of health care reform will touch every Coloradoan and arguably every American in the coming months and years.
Please make it a priority to attend these critical meetings and report — even if in brief — the activities or even the lack thereof of those charged with moving this effort forward.
This letter has not been edited.
I am so sorry you stooped so low as to appear in a propaganda film by the infamous Michael Moore.
Don't expect the rest of us to fall for his crappy films.He is a far,far left wing nutjob. If you want to get down on your knees and praise him,go ahead. Just don't expect the rest of us who don't want to pay for everyone's health care to believe his total bullcrap.
Posted by on July 26, 2007 03:39 PM"Why is the Denver press so disinterested?"
Journalists are supposed to be disinterested. You probably meant uninterested.
The press generally gets interested only in what they think the public is interested in which, apparently, is not Moore's docugandas (or maybe it should be propomentary).
Posted by James Jones on July 26, 2007 04:04 PM"The press generally gets interested only in what they think the public is interested in.."
Wel, I don't know - I believe i read that "Fahrenheit 911" (remember the documentary about the lies, deceit & sleaze by Bush & co that got us into Iraq) - is the most viewed documentary of all time - I think that qualifies Michael Moore's movies as "something the public is interested in," don't you think, JJ?
Posted by drew on July 26, 2007 04:23 PMI know the first two posters have never seen a Michael Moore film. He is really for the small guy, the people who don't have a voice. You see big business and corporate interests will crush the little people for profit. Michael Moore is anti corporate and big business because of what it does to the average American. But I guess these first 2 posters have great insurance as far as they know. And also wake up, you already pay for everyones health care, that is what insurance is, you pay for those who need it until you do. Why do we have such a selfish society right now?? You don't mind paying for Iraqi health care and schools but damnit you aren't going to help out a fellow American. What a sad state we are in!
Posted by Michael D on July 26, 2007 04:49 PMDrew, Michael D - Do you guys seek Rosie ODonnell for info on 9/11 too? Or how about going to Al Gore for global warming data?
Those are some top notch experts I hear.
Posted by KW on July 26, 2007 05:15 PMMichael D. said:
"Why do we have such a selfish society right now??
That's a good question. Nearly 60 million people voted for John Kerry in 2004. That is about the same population of France.
Why is there not a 60 million strong Liberal Health Care charity? If every liberal who wanted universal health care donated an average of $2000 each, the fund would raise $120,000,000,000 to help the poor get access to health care.
So, why don't we see such a fund? Perhaps, it's because liberals are selfish? Or maybe they only like charity when it's coerced from someone else.
Posted by John II on July 26, 2007 05:37 PMGod Help us all!!!
Posted by Michael D on July 26, 2007 07:52 PMWhy do KW and John post here when they haven't seen the movie? You know nothing of what you speak, don't post unless you have seen the subject matter.
Posted by Michael D on July 26, 2007 08:00 PMI've seen a couple of Mr. Moore's documentaries before. I've read one of his books. I've heard excerpts from Sicko. I've visited Sicko's website. I've seen his misuse of statistics. I'm aware of Mr. Moore's views regarding health care in America. I'm aware that he took American citizens to Cuba to shame us.
I don't need to watch every single one of his "documentaries" in order to comment about him.
Having said that, where have I commented about Mr. Moore's Sicko on this thread? Actually, I'm not sure I commented on Sicko in any thread.
Posted by John II on July 26, 2007 08:11 PMSo Ms. Donna Smith, with enough free health care would you anticipate living forever? Why is it, do you suppose, that you want government to do everything for you? Why is it that you want others to support you when you won’t take responsibility to support yourself? If this issue concerns you and your constituency so much, perhaps its time to go out, get an education and then get jobs like so many of the rest of us do. And by the way, I hate to be the one that breaks this to you, but you are eventually going to die. Perhaps the press has failed to get this message out, but most people would not consider this newsworthy either.
Posted by Craig Miller on July 26, 2007 08:30 PMThe media is truly amazing. I've watched them lynch Mike Moore about the accuracy of his movie. Mike has no "body-bags" to his credit. If the media had quizzed or investigated (audited) President Bush, about his "felony" UCMJ status (40+ years AWOLee, deserter, and illegal separation and discharge), there wouldn't be 9/11 3K dead saints, NOLA-Katrina 1500 dead black saints, 3600+ dead Iraq-NAM warriors and patriots, and 100K dead unsuspecting Iraqis.
The spineless media, collectively, are under their desks, regarding Bush's war-crimes. He invaded Iraq simply to exterminate Arabs and he used "WMD", as his major lie to dupe Americans. Secondly, he was urged to invade Iraq by the American Taliban (Judeo-Christian evangelical goons and the oil companies). I challenge the media to investigate our troops use of chemical weapons (white phoshrous munitions-WILLY PETER) on unsuspecting Iraqi citizens. The WILLY PETER we used in Vietnam, burned through the Vietnamese skin and bones. Also Bush Rx drugged our troops (mind-altering PTSD suppressors), so they could mass-murder Iraqis without blinking.
A very strange pattern has developed in the past 60+ years. FDR unleashed the ATOM BOMB on Japanese, LBJ unleashed WILLY PETER on Vietnamese, and "W" unleashed WILLY PETER on Arabs. Suddenly, da "noose" and "water-boarding", used on black folks, don't look so bad after all.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on July 26, 2007 09:01 PM"NOLA-Katrina 1500 dead black saints"
You mean all the victims were black? I read on wikipedia that roughly half were black and half were white. As for the saints, I'm not sure if they were all "saints".
Posted by John II on July 26, 2007 09:17 PMGod Help us all!!!
Posted by Michael
He has. He has endowed with certain rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But we're supposed to pay for our own health care.
Posted by James Jones on July 26, 2007 09:22 PMI don't have to walk up behind the cow to recognize the smell of manure. Neither do I need to enrich a liar like Michael Moore by paying to watch one of his diatribes to know that whatever he says is more false than fact.
Posted by momma y on July 26, 2007 09:23 PM40 acres ...
FDR unleashed the atom bomb?
exterminate arabs (wouldn't a Nam style carpet bombing/s be more effective?
RX drugging our troops to be mass killers?
Did you spend too much time in the reactor room of those subs? Do you just make up any fact to spew your venom with?
Posted by on July 26, 2007 09:56 PMHow do you tie in your incoherent babbling to the movie Sicko, 40acres? Do you just bounce off any random wall to express your racist views of everyone?
Wow!
Johnny boy is his usual dull-witted self with his nonsense about charity. Pat yourself on the back all you like, but the only reason you spout crap about conservatives and charities is because of the inappropriate inclusion of church donations. And since those are largely political in nature, and those that aren't often go to enrich greedy little false prophets, your points are sheer bullsh*t. If you donate to a church, I doubt is is one that does anything that can be described as charitable.
Posted by on July 26, 2007 10:24 PMDonna raises a good point here. Voters have told pollsters that healthcare is the domestic issue that most concerns them, and yet it doesn't get much coverage. But then neither do other serious issues. We're all part of the problem. I found myself reading the story about the pit bull attacks before an analysis on constitutional abuses this a.m. Easier on the brain -- but which was more important?
Speaking of brains, good grief -- some of the comments here. You forget about this kind of mentality if you have a day job and stay away from talk radio. For instance: Liberals should get together $120B to give to health insurance companies for a couple years of coverage for the uninsured? For temporary charity rather than fixing the problem? When fixing the problem would actually save more than $120B a year? At which time our businesses and families could then invest their resources more productively than in the duplicated administration and bloated CEO salaries that our healthcare dollars now go to?
Since it's these folks who aren't interested in fixing the problem, I'd suggest the onus is on their team to ante up with that charity -- I mean, you guys are the Christianists, aren't you?
Indeed, a number of those posting would seem to be among the 29% who thought Iraq was a bang-up idea and still is. Hey -- it was your dear leader who called on you to do the charity. Remember? Charity instead of justice is what you all believe in, not the liberals.
I'll stick with John XXIII, who said "justice before charity." When we set up just systems where everyone is in and no one is out, it's like magic. Families get stronger and suddenly you don't need as much charity.
Kind of like the end of slavery, Medicare, civil rights, and a progressive income tax. You guys railed against these policies too, but they've become just as American as the Second Amendment. Cost-effective, quality, universal healthcare is a conservative value as well as a progressive one. Michael Moore did a fine job of illustrating the problem with the U.S. healthcare system, and Donna was far braver than those now taking pot shots.
She stands up for what she believes in, and uses her real name when she speaks truth to power -- and to people in the shadows sniping at her.
Keep up the good work, Donna. We're with you.
Strange comments from 10:24. I didn't mention anything about donating to churches. I merely suggested a possible liberal health care charity. What's wrong with that?
Posted by John II on July 26, 2007 11:05 PM"For instance: Liberals should get together $120B to give to health insurance companies for a couple years of coverage for the uninsured?"
Ms. Hannum, where was that suggested?
Posted by John II on July 26, 2007 11:12 PMMs. Hannum,
I just read some of your blog. I'm sorry for the loss of your brother. But, I'm not sure why you think he would be alive if he had lived in Canada.
He went to the hospital and was misdiagnosed. That is tragically unfortunate but I don't see how a single-payer system would have helped him.
You say he had no health insurance for himself yet managed to cover his wife and baby. Why couldn't he afford insurance for himself?
I went to Blue Cross's website and priced out insurance for a 45 year old man in Colorado. The monthly premiums ranged from $120 to $240. If he chose an HSA plan the premium would have been just $63 a month.
These do not seem like unreasonable costs to insure one's health. Surely, he could have managed an extra $120 a month. By the way, are those his dogs in that picture? How much do they cost to maintain?
Posted by John II on July 26, 2007 11:59 PMI love how the idea of a liberal health care charity sounds so radical to liberals. Yet, the thought of a leviathan federal government forcing citizens on a massive scale to hand over their money for someone else's health care sounds perfectly normal to them.
Why can't the left form a massive health care charity? Why can't all these limousine liberals get the ball rolling? And all the celebridiots could wear heart-shaped pins on their dresses and have big concerts to raise money. Ben Affleck and Rosie O'Donnell can host telethons each year. It will be a liberal tradition. Mr. Moore could even do a new documentary about it to embarrass conservatives.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 12:16 AMJohn II - right on!
Posted by rockymountain on July 27, 2007 01:44 AMDo any of you ever wonder as I do why these socialist health care proponents NEVER give any answer to the question why they would want a government that cannot protect our borders, educate our children efficiently (or effectively for that matter) manage social security, medicare or medicaide to provide them with healthcare? It is because they cannot justify that end of the argument, the only argument they have is that the system is broken and that bigger government and much higher taxes is the answer. Reform is needed but instead they lob epithets at people like me who do not want the government in my pocket, or call me insensitive or that they can smell the sulfur now when I suggest personal responsibility for those without health care. Or for them to get a better education so they can provide insurance for their upcoming baby. These people speak of personal freedoms but are constantly trying to put ever bigger governement in control of everything in your daily life - we are all too stupid to fend for ourselves in this big nasty world.
Posted by Jack Bauer on July 27, 2007 07:38 AMJohn II would very much like for everybody to ignore the fact that the United States spends around twice as much as many universal health care systems for health care, and yet ranks number thirty-eight on the World Health Organization's ranking of health care system's in the different countries of the world.
If we spent at the same amount as those universal health care nations, we would be spending something like a trillion dollars less than we do.
John II' s problem is that he does not want the United States government to be a compassionate and caring government. He wants to take the United States back to those times in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when predatory capitalism roamed the country destroying people's lives with impunity because the government back then did not even have a theoretical interest in the welfare of the people it governed.
To give you an idea of how primitive John II's thinking is, he opposes having the federal government regulate our food and medicine. Do you want your food and medicine with or without poison?
"Do any of you ever wonder as I do why these socialist health care proponents NEVER give any answer to the question why they would want a government that cannot protect our borders, educate our children efficiently (or effectively for that matter) manage social security, medicare or medicaide to provide them with healthcare?"
Hi, Jack. Since we're playing the old kids' game of making things up out of whole cloth, I have this to offer: Do you ever wonder why people like Jack are willing to let children simply die in the streets because their parents can't afford health care? Hey, this is fun, Jack. Your turn.
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 07:49 AMTruth said:
"John II' s problem is that he does not want the United States government to be a compassionate and caring government. "
That's right, Truth. I want the federal government to do what is constitutionally authorized for it to do, no more, no less. You want compassionate and caring? Find yourself a woman. Stop trying to be compassionate and caring with other people's money.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 08:00 AMMichael D. said:
"Why do we have such a selfish society right now??
That's a good question. Nearly 60 million people voted for John Kerry in 2004. That is about the same population of France.
Why is there not a 60 million strong Liberal Health Care charity? If every liberal who wanted universal health care donated an average of $2000 each, the fund would raise $120,000,000,000 to help the poor get access to health care.
So, why don't we see such a fund? Perhaps, it's because liberals are selfish? Or maybe they only like charity when it's coerced from someone else.
Posted by John II on July 26, 2007 05:37 PM
Tell you what John...
We liberals will look at starting a fund for universal health care at the $2,000 per person average you quoted.
First, though, all you conservatives who voted for Bush and his war need to refund us the more than $2,000 the war has cost each one of...but only if you agree to fund the rest of the war yourselves.
Agreed?
\
There you go again. So, universal health care is so important to you yet you'll only fund it if you can force other people to part with their money.
Tell that to Truth's sick children dying in the streets because of lack of health care. Tell them, sorry kid, I would have helped you but I can't stand Bush. I'm sure the kids will understand.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 08:16 AMOk....John...
Let's go over this..
You're saying that because we're anti-Bush we should pay for universal health care (forget that we are through higher medical costs and always rising premiums)...
But when the shoes in put on the other foot and you are asked if pro-Bush people will then pay our share of the for the war...you dodge the question.
Tell our soldiers on their third and fourth tours of duty...and all of those who have sacrificed arms, legs, eyes, etc..and the wives, husband, children, parents and siblings who have buried loved one...Sorry, but my politics are more important than your lives.
Posted by Thomas on July 27, 2007 08:30 AMJohn II --
They weren't his dogs. He was dog sitting. I just liked the photo. Paul had what's known in the industry as "pre-existing conditions." His health insurance quotes were more like $700-800 a month. They didn't want him.
Market competition in American health care includes the insurance companies competing to keep out potentially sick people, and kick out people who get sick on their watch. That's how they make money.
Paul got sick on the last Sunday in July, exactly a year ago. My other brother visited him on Monday, and they talked, Paul curled up on a couch, about whether it would be less expensive if he went to a doctor -- what doctor? He didn't have one -- or just straight to the emergency room.
He would have gone in Sunday -- the day before by then -- if we'd been Canadians. When Paul finally did go in, Tuesday a.m., he showed classic signs of appendicitis. But they ("they" being UCLA Santa Monica) gave him a CAT scan, standard procedure, and that muddied the diagnosis. Maybe it was diverticulitis. They sent Paul home with antibiotics that he couldn't keep down, and instructions to follow up at County Hospital.
It doesn't take much googling to learn that diverticulitis and appendicitis are so easily misdiagnosed one for the other that best practices is to admit diverticulitis cases, just in case, for observation.
They didn't offer that to Paul. Nor did they offer him an appendectomy even without being sure, as they did my husband when a different doctor, a dozen years back, couldn't really tell if Christopher had appendicitis.
"You'd be a fool to say no," the doctor told my insured husband.
No -- if we were citizens of any other industrialized country in the world, Paul would have been covered, would have been paying in a reasonable amount for it, and would have gone in when he fell ill.
The doctor would not have "dumped" him -- that's what they call it -- and his baby girl would have a father. A working father, by the way, who payed taxes, helped friends move house, watched their dogs when they were out of town, donated to charities, etc. A good citizen. Babyhannum.com has links to a few of the tributes to him. He was truly a decent, beloved member of the community. We were not ready to say good-bye.
Appendectomies are straightforward, inexpensive procedures if you catch them in time. And if the doctor's wrong, and takes out a healthy appendix, it's no big deal.
But suppose those dogs in the photo were Paul's dogs?
Would that make him one of the undeserving poor, instead of the deserving poor? And if his quotes were just $400 a month? Would that mean that he deserved to die?
And is the American government -- which is made up of the American people, devised by our founding fathers, and elected by Americans -- is our American government really so corrupt and incompetent that we couldn't manage a healthcare system as well or better than OECD peer countries? They manage to provide quality health care for all their citizens at about half the cost per capita. What makes you think we'd screw it up, when they do OK? What makes you think we couldn't do it even better? Why the disdain for America?
Universal, single-payer healthcare is a conservative, common-sense value. It creates stronger businesses, a healthier workforce, stronger families.
Why not give it a try in one of the U.S. states? Isn't that what the federal system is all about? You're sure it won't work, but will fall flat on its face. So we'll know then. It works everywhere else, but we're not competent enough to hand it.
Single-payer, as is being advocated for here, keeps doctors and hospitals exactly as they are now. It's only the financing that would be changed. Instead of hundreds of different companies screening out potentially sick people, everyone would be in one risk pool -- choosing their doctors and hospitals. Unlike now, where you're limited to whatever your plan covers.
The independent financial analysis of a single-payer system in Colorado was released this month. It shows a total savings of $1.6 billion annually in Colorado -- while covering everyone better than we're covered now.
Cost-effectiveness, quality, and fairness — come now. Those aren't only progressive values. Conservatives care about those things too.
John II, The limousine liberals are busy spending the money they raised for Katrina victims. There has been no accounting of where the millions went.Maybe it went to pay all their personal assistants to touch the envelopes and open them.God forbid they have to touch commoner's mail donations.
As far as people believing if they are insured somehow magically they will be healthy and free of illness,let me pop your little dream bubble.
Insurance does not mean you recieve great health care,or even decent for that matter. It is not a magical card that gets everyone top rated excellent health care.
My mother had excellent health insurance and was misdiagnosed for 4 years.She finally died after they found out she had stage 4 colon cancer,which takes 10 years to develop.I watched her get the best care after being diagnosed with stage 4 cancer. I watched her die for 6 long weeks.There was nothing to be done for her except try to keep her comfortable and I cherish those last 6 weeks.
Her regular Dr,s did nothing for her except throw pill after pill to her when she was complaining that she knew something was wrong.Still it did not save her life. Her insurance was great. It covered everything with very little money out of her pocket. Her employer had a great policy . My mother worked so her and my father could have health insurance.She didn't need the money,my father had his own business and was doing very well.
Her hospital bills came to over $250,000 dollars.My father paid $800,that's all.
My mom had insurance,Dr.'s,specialist's,money to pay for anything and what she got was a death sentence.
So before everyone thinks that once they have that health insurance they are magically transformed,think again. It's the Doctor's not the insurance.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on July 27, 2007 08:42 AMThere you go again Truth
"World Health Organization's ranking of health care system's" ranked by what criteria? your sources in the past have been how well they take care of "minorities", etc. Many of those countries do not have very many "minorities,
"John II' s problem is that he does not want the United States government to be a compassionate and caring government. " Why is that a problem? people can be compassionate, but governments cannot and should not because compassion is a RELATIVE issue.
The so called "predatory capitalism " of the past made possible our lifestyle with more money, leisure, technology, ad infinitum and our ability to help other people because we have surplus. Also, name a few comassionate Foundations: Ford, Mellon, Rockefeller, Carnigie, etc ( and Now Gates)those terrible robber barons. Don't see any Fondas or Striesands do you .
"he opposes having the federal government regulate our food and medicine" Regulate is a bad term as far as FREEDOM goes Truth>
AF
Great point Thomas
All you wingnuts who support the war - pay for it! How about some "personal responsibility" you bunch of freeloading warmongers! And at the same time we want refund checks from Cheney, Haliburton & all the disgusting war profiteers who make billions while American soldiers die.
Posted by drew on July 27, 2007 09:00 AMAmen...
I'm truly sorry for your loss and your mother's suffering...
But understand this...no, I don't believe that universal health care is some kind of magic wand.
It will take generations to basically rehab the entire population of the U.S., especially poor people, to get preventative care rather than waiting until they are sick.
As I've said in previous posts...I lived in Australia for 5 years...they have taxpayer funded health care for every citizen. Everyone has the option to purchase additional coverage so they can go to the doctors of their choice rather than government clinics and hospitals where the lines are longer.
But overall, their health care costs are much less ours. The people who purchase supplementary insurance pay less than we do for primary. Prescriptions are much less.
The fundamental reason why their health care costs are lower is because people are going to the doctor before they get sick.
My ex's mother there, discovered a small lump in her breast and was in the doctor the next day. That's just the way they are there. She got it checked immediately.
It was fortunately benign.
But too many women here in America..would wait until they were starting to feel ill before they went to the doctor...when it might be too late....
It's kind of like that old proverb..
You can give a person a fish and they will eat for a day. Or you can teach them to fish and they will be able to feed themselves every day.
The same goes in this situation. You can give people medical care when they're sick and you might make them feel better than day. Or you can give them health care before they get sick and there's a much better chance that they'll stay better their whole lives.
John II: "You want compassionate and caring? Find yourself a woman."
I'm looking, John II, I'm forever looking. Do you know of any sweet young things that have a hankering for an older, well-experienced, man? Someone who is not so quick on the draw that she hardly notices he was there?
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 09:09 AMThomas:
We liberals will look at starting a fund for universal health care at the $2,000 per person average you quoted.
First, though, all you conservatives who voted for Bush and his war need to refund us the more than $2,000 the war has cost each one of...but only if you agree to fund the rest of the war yourselves.
Now how can anyone argue with liberal logic like that?
(/sarcasm)
John II: "There you go again. So, universal health care is so important to you yet you'll only fund it if you can force other people to part with their money."
I recall this picture of a little baby crying its eyes out. Under the picture was the caption: "I just hate it when I don't get my way".
That reminds me of poor John II. He just hates it when I bring up the facts.
There isn't a prominent conservative alive who agrees with John II's view of what government should be. He obviously is not a liberal. He clearly is not a conservative. What is he? Answer next week.
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 09:17 AMThomas wisely says this in his excellent post:
"The fundamental reason why their health care costs are lower is because people are going to the doctor before they get sick."
Business Week, that stalwart conservative publication that it wedded to the business world, after pointing that wait times in the United States are no better than in most universal health countries, and after reflecting how the United States is behind, often far behind, in many health care matters, says this:
"The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost. No other country came close."
Did you see the "because of the cost" and "No other country came close"?
"
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 09:23 AMThomas,
All I did was mention a liberal health care charity and you start preaching about war. I don't think the sick dying kids in the street will quite understand that. But, I'm sure you can explain it to them in a way they'll understand.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 09:43 AMThose who would trade a little bit of freedom for a little bit of healthcare deserve neither
It amazes me that people can't wrap their minds around this issue.
Let's try another tactic...
Do you take your car in for regular tune-ups?
Get the oil changed?
Get the tires rotated?
Have your brakes checked? The pads replaced, if necessary?
Get a realignment?
And how much does all that cost?
A couple hundred?
How much does it cost if you don't do these things and your car breaks down?
You have to get it towed. The repair costs are greater. You're without transportation until it gets fixed.
It's the same thing with health care.
If you get things checked out regularly rather than waiting until they break down..it costs less!
The difference, of couse, is that when you don't take care of your car...it really doesn't affect anyone but if you can't pay to have it fixed...it isn't going to be fixed.
Health care is another issue because a health care provider cannot turn away somebody because of their inability to pay.
When someone can't pay for their heath care, the costs are passed on to everyone else through higher costs...that's why it costs $7.00 to get an Ibuprofen in a hospital!
Creating a health care system where everyone has access to preventative care would benefit everyone, including those of us who already have coverage, because our costs would go down.
No, it's not going to happen overnight, but we have to start somewhere.
Posted by Thomas on July 27, 2007 09:51 AMTruth and Thomas and others wanting Socialized medicine give great examples of the fact that our HC system is in need of help and needs to be fixed. They even have my hands wringing with fear.
The point is that I have not seen anyone on these posts ever say that we do not need to fix healthcare. Please show me any post that says we dont need to fix healthcare.
Since we have a problem, then we all should jump on board and let Govt fix our problems. We will all be better for it.
They dont care that Govt has been part of the problem. When addressed, their answer is well the Govt agencies need more power and it will be better in those cases.
The latest excuses pit one govt group over another to make the point for socialized medicine. 1 it takes away from the problems at hand and 2 it shows that Govt is not the answer when given total control over an area of our lives. There is a great difference between Control and assistance/oversight with Govt.
Now that Truth has claimed I am too compassionate and nice, I will even it out for him.
I have only seen costs that are compared to other countries (Note to all dont use Chile as one of your comparisons) and not to the costs of implementing this Socialized system, nor the costs to business that interacts with HC. What do we do there. How many do we sacrifice from one group to help another without looking at ALL options?
Posted by bwr on July 27, 2007 09:55 AMTruth is still referencing that bogus WHO "study". That WHO study ranks countries on a few subjective criteria. The measurement that gets weighted 50% is one that measures life expectancy. As most of us are aware, a nation's average life expectancy is more connected to lifestyle and culture than to medical care. So, why did WHO apply an arbitrary 50% weight to life expectancy, yet only 25% to medical responsiveness (which the US scored the highest)?
Here's a great link to a Harvard lecture about culture, medical care and life expectancy. Bango Skank was kind enough to post this link.
http://my.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k10249
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 09:55 AMSo now we're advocating Universal Auto-care?
After all, some people just can’t AFFORD new brakes and tires and are forced to drive any way, at great risk to the public. It's not their fault their car broke down and needs to be towed, it's up to you (Thomas and Truth) to bail them out!
Check-ups are cheap and just like changing oil, some people would just rather spend their money on cigarettes.
Speaking of that, are you advocating a crack down on un-healthy, irresponsible behavior if you get your way, because someone's health will no longer only affect themselves
Thomas,
"If you get things checked out regularly rather than waiting until they break down..it costs less!"
Wow, really Thomas? That car analogy was brilliant. I never thought prevention is better than waiting until the car breaks down.
First, if my car breaks down, I don't expect someone else to help me pay for it.
Second, the government cannot force me to change the oil every 5000 miles.
Third, tune-ups and oil changes are cheap and so are routine doctor's visits. The vast majority of Americans can afford to get medical check-ups just like the vast majority can afford oil changes.
We'll get a much better result by altering our lifestyles than by having government-controlled "free" preventative health care.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 10:04 AMbwr wrote: "I have only seen costs that are compared to other countries (Note to all dont use Chile as one of your comparisons) and not to the costs of implementing this Socialized system, nor the costs to business that interacts with HC. "
Nor have I seen the cost to our freedom analyzed for implementing this type of system
Posted by Clarence on July 27, 2007 10:08 AM"We'll get a much better result by altering our lifestyles than by having government-controlled "free" preventative health care."
They don't want to alter their lifestyle, they want to force you to alter yours.
Posted by on July 27, 2007 10:11 AMTruth said:
"Do you know of any sweet young things that have a hankering for an older, well-experienced, man?"
Here you go, Truth: Colorado women
Not only do I fund your retirement, teach you about our Constitution, give you history lessons and teach you how to analyze bogus "studies", but now I'm helping you get laid. If that's not compassionate conservatism I don't what is.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 10:23 AMI asked my daughter and son-in-law what they thought of Fahrenheit 911. They both agreed it was stupid so they didn't need to see it because they already knew what it was about. That's what happens when your daughter marries a Rush Limbaugh fan.
Posted by Stan B on July 27, 2007 10:32 AM(Using your standard, Stan B)
So that means you listen to Limbaugh on a regular basis, since you can so easily assert his opinion?
Posted by Clarence on July 27, 2007 10:36 AMDon't you think we have gotten off the topic a bit?
Ms. Smith wrote to chastise the RMN for not reporting on a meeting that took place. Since I don't know anything about her group, what the intent of that meeting was for, or why the RMN should have covered it, my only comment can be, maybe Ms. Smith should have used her letter to inform instead of chastise and blame the media for not reporting on something that she didn't even bother to mention.
I can imagine that the newspaper has a tendency to report on every single grass roots meeting, or gathering in the city, or region. Without any basic information from Ms. Smith, maybe she needs to look in the mirror, before pointing any fingers.
Posted by Dan2 on July 27, 2007 11:06 AMI just did a little research on my own. Looks like that Commission is looking at ways to improve Colorado Heath Care. Responsibility by the state to improve conditions within the state.
Totally different than a single payer national system. How does this topic have anything at all to do with Mr. Moore's movie 'Sicko' or anything else with Universal Health Care?
Good for the committee and good for the state to look at what will fix our problem here in Colorado. But since, from what I could see on the web-site, that they will report to Gov. Ritter when they finish their study, why would the media need to be there to cover a meeting that will have results released?
For me personally, this is EXACTLY what should be happening in every state, as it is up to the states to solve their own problems, and not always look to the Feds to solve it for them. Good for Gov. Ritter, and great for the people of Colorado. But this has NOTHING to do with Mr. Moore's film or apparent philosophy on National Health Care.
But my bad for not taking an extra step to see what Ms. Smith was referring to. My mistake.
Posted by Dan2 on July 27, 2007 11:20 AMI think how it got started is from her signature line
"Donna Smith, American SiCKO (appearing in Michael Moore’s new film)of Aurora writes:
OK, where were you? Why is the Denver press so disinterested?"
Why is John Idiot Idiot posting links to a website promoting fat Repiglican losers?
Posted by on July 27, 2007 12:25 PMHealth care is so important, it should be a guaranteed right.
Food and shelter are higher priorities than health care, wouldn't we agree? Government can subsidize our groceries and mortgages/rents. And a house needs electricity, gas, water and sewer. What good is a house without a telephone, cable and internet access so we can participate in this "democracy"? Government should provide that too. With all my needs taken care of, government can pay my greens fees, maintain/repair my car and mow my lawn.
Just to make it simple, we'll turn over all our assets to the government, which then will disperse them according to need. Got a spare room in the basement, so I'll just have to suck it up when the government assigns some poor slob to live there, rather than build another place just for him.
And since we won't have to think, how about a daily television broadcasts to tell us what we need to know, and only what we need to know.
Starting to feel like Mother Russia already....
Posted by prima facie on July 27, 2007 01:54 PMA comment for Clarence: Yes, I confess, I do listen to Limbaugh. I even used to watch his syndicated TV show when it was on. It drives my wife crazy, but so does Rush. I figure though, if you don't listen to the arguments of others, you'll wind up with no valid recourse discussing subjects with others. Limbaugh is a wind bag but occassionally he makes a good point. On some subjects though, he resorts to distortions and sometimes even things that are untrue. There are too many examples to mention here.
Posted by Stan B on July 27, 2007 02:00 PMprima facie said:
"Starting to feel like Mother Russia already..."
Come on, prima facie, that's a bit extreme isn't it? Next you'll tell us that the government will dictate to us what not to eat at restaurants.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 02:28 PMStan B wrote: "Limbaugh is a wind bag"
I'm a moderate conservative who has never purposely listened to Rush. But from what I have heard, Stan B, you're right!
He seems to complain about everything and offer few solutions if any.
Bet you thought I was gonna dispute your statement, huh?
Posted by KW on July 27, 2007 02:49 PMWhy is the right so afraid of anything that helps out society as a whole, it is socialism!!! Bad, scary, the government will be listening to your phine calls, be in your bedroom, wil arrest you and hold you without charges infinitely, go through your house without telling you! (oops, they can aleady do all these things) bad example! But they will support fascism, what is the lure on the right to fascism?
Posted by Michael D on July 27, 2007 03:11 PMMichael D - 2 reasons come to mind.
1) In a free country we shouldn't be mandated to participate in a health care program. We already have enough mandatory bureaucracies.
2) The government has a horrible track record with every bureacracy it currently has in place and I seriously doubt things would be different in healthcare.
Let them figure out how to run the programs already in place and then maybe we can talk about giving them even more to deal with.
Posted by KW on July 27, 2007 03:31 PMJohn II: "Thomas, All I did was mention a liberal health care charity and you start preaching about war. I don't think the sick dying kids in the street will quite understand that. But, I'm sure you can explain it to them in a way they'll understand.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 09:43 AM"
You are right, John II, kids will not understand that. In case you are completely out of touch with children, you will know that there isn't any explanation about the health care problem that anyone can expect kids to understand.
But any thinking adult will understand that if you spend a trillion dollars or so on war you will have less money to spend on health care at home.
Have you thought about that, John II?
Posted by on July 27, 2007 03:37 PMJohn II:> "Next you'll tell us that the government will dictate to us what not to eat at restaurants.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 02:28 PM"
Lord, I hope so, don't you John II? Or maybe you like Chinese poison as a condiment. But it doesn't have to be that way. We can each bring our own chemical lab to the restaurant and test the items ourselves.
Posted by on July 27, 2007 03:43 PMJohn II: "Truth said:
"Do you know of any sweet young things that have a hankering for an older, well-experienced, man?"
Here you go, Truth: Colorado women"
Do I understand correctly that you've had pretty good luck with that website?
"But any thinking adult will understand that if you spend a trillion dollars or so on war you will have less money to spend on health care at home."
And any thinking adult will understand that national defense is a duty of government. You might disagree with the actions that this administration, or others, take to do that, but it is a duty of government; providing health care, or health insurance, is not.
Posted by Mike on July 27, 2007 03:52 PM3:37 said:
"But any thinking adult will understand that if you spend a trillion dollars or so on war you will have less money to spend on health care at home."
Oh, I see. Because of this war, your annual pay has shrunk by $2000. So, now you can't afford to donate to a health care charity.
I'm sure the poor sick kids will understand the economics of your situation. Don't tell them you discussed it with me online though; they may ask how you can afford a computer and internet connection while there's a war going on.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 03:57 PMJohn II, did you post that last post by mistake or is that the way your mind really works?
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 04:06 PMTruth - How much does it cost to bury 3000 innocent Americans, compensate their families, restaff half fo the NYFD and clean up after a terrorist attack every 6 months or so.
If you cancel the war on terror you'll have to factor that huge additional expense into your local healthcare budget.
Gee, not so cheap anymore, is it?
Posted by KW on July 27, 2007 04:45 PMKW, I presume you had some point you wanted to make but just didn't know how to go about it, so you posted the above nonsense instead.
Posted by Truth on July 27, 2007 06:28 PMTruth says:
Hi, Jack. Since we're playing the old kids' game of making things up out of whole cloth, I have this to offer: Do you ever wonder why people like Jack are willing to let children simply die in the streets because their parents can't afford health care? Hey, this is fun, Jack. Your turn.
Speaking of making things up - Holy Crap tell me Truth - where just where are there kids dying in the streets? You are so full of BS it is unbeleivable and nowhere did I ever exclaim that I wanted kids to die there. You are a piece of work.
And can you answer the question I'm just dying to have answered rather than changing the subject?
Why in the world would you trust our government to provide you with healthcare when almost every other program they try to provide is weighted down by red tape - redundancy and wasteful process? Answer the question rather than making things up yourself Truth.
Posted by Jack Bauer on July 27, 2007 09:05 PMBTW Truth - or untruths as you seem to spew,
I happen to think that the SCHIP bill currently "progressing" in congress is a good thing - as long as it doesn't lead to complete government control of the health care system. You see untruth, I can take compromise on issues rather than being a my way or the highway person. But I'm sure you can find a way to interpret that as me "still wanting the children to die in the streets" while biting your fingernails in angst.
Mr. Bauer said:
"You are so full of BS it is unbeleivable and nowhere did I ever exclaim that I wanted kids to die there. "
That's funny. Get used to it, Mr. Bauer. I actually have a special key on my keyboard that types "I never said that". I created the keyboard macro especially for Truth because I found myself saying that to him so often.
Posted by John II on July 27, 2007 11:21 PMHi, Jack. Glad I was able to wake you up. But I'm worried about your fingernails. Be sure to stay out of the quick. Anyhow, I did get a kick out of your posts. It's always interesting to see that it isn't only kids that have temper tantrums. Do me a favor and tell your dog to stay the hell out of your way till you calm down.
Posted by Truth on July 28, 2007 07:34 AM"You might disagree with the actions that this administration, or others, take to do that, but it is a duty of government; providing health care, or health insurance, is not.
Posted by Mike on July 27, 2007 03:52 PM"
Mike, I have to hand it to you; you are much more forthright than your buddy, John II. Your and his opposition to universal health care is really not about quality. What it is about is your disagreement with the kind of government we have in the United States and have had for many, many years. That is, a government which considers that it has a duty to be a caring and compassionate government. While liberals and conservatives have much disagreement with how much government we should have, there aren't any prominent conservatives who would agree with you and Johnny that the government should not be involved at all in health care, or in regulating food and drugs, child labor, industrial safety, securities fraud, the environment, consumer protection, deceptive advertising, etc. In other words, you and Johnny are fringe extremists with whom very, very few people agree, and with whom absolutely no people agree who think of the United States as a caring and compassionate country.
But you are to be commended for your honesty. I hope you can persuade John II to follow suit.
Posted by Truth on July 28, 2007 07:45 AMHeres the Truth about GOVT Managed/Controlled healthcare.
Costs will be greater for many yrs to come. The cost of implementing and converting to this system is astronomical
Costs to the economy will cause great pain throughout the US. Getting rid of the evil Insurance companies rather than fixing will lead to unemployment not only to them, but to many degrees that the companies touched. IF for those that want the Govt to control both ADMIN and PATIENT CARE side, count on double digit unemployment that will take years to recover and the Special GDP you always spout, will plummet
Patient Care will lose quality. More so in the beginning but will never reach its potential. But Socailists are not worried about Quality. It is the coverage of Quantity that matters.
New drugs and medical devices and procedures will start to dry up. This will not only affect the US but also the world. Why should companies dump billions of dollars on R&D and not gain it back? If they were really compassionate they will only last a bit longer than the evil companies as they will go broke. AHHHHHH but you say the Govt will fund ALL of this and then it will be better. OK I have never seen anyone associate these costs to the overall costs? Cheaper? I doubt it.
It also takes away from our freedom of choice in managing our lives and bodies. Each day on here people have grand ideas on how to limit the freedoms we now enjoy.
To claim that all Conservatives are with the Current Admin is absurd and you all use it as a battle axe to drive your point. Some of you use it in a manner that would promote violent tendencies. You are so mad about what is going on that you put forth violent and bullying tones. Sh*& we are all pissed about what is going on. And BOTH PARTIES are to blame.
Truth Nice job dude. Where has JohnII said anything about Govt not being involved in HC at all? BTW YOU know I have not said that. You distort and now you have gone so far as tell a complete untruth to make a point.
Lets take a look at your spiral on this subject
KW breaks down the lie of 50 Million uninsured. 1 not that many and then proceeds to define what the numbers really mean. Example that there are millions making good money that CHOOSE not to have insurance.
What was your response? To call KW a liar becuase he called Moore a liar. HMMM why? Because the information that KW used was not readily or in sufficient numbers reported by the press. It was NOT a lie.......just numbers that people are not bringing out.
Now to Mikes comment you so conveniently cut and pasted. What word are we talking about here? I am assuming PROVIDE. Why did you not ask him what he meant by that word rather than running your mouth about how you had found the conspiracy? Its called dialogue. Use it. Here is how
Mike did you refer to the Govt having any thing to do with PROVIDING healthcare, or did you mean having the Govt CONTROL healthcare?
You ae not interested in dialogue. Have had this discussion many times with you and you either attack or hold your breath like a 4 yr old hoping it all will go away.
The Truth is through some of the successful discussions on this forum, you let us know how much of a socialist you really are and how you want it involved in our lives. Although you try to paint a different picture with special words...ie "socialized capitalism" hoping that the word "capitlalism" deadens the blow of socialized.
Posted by bwr on July 28, 2007 08:34 AMJohn II, can you send me that keyboard macro?
Truth cannot answer a simple question or stay on subject for that matter, as he has no answer to anything relating to this subject only to say we need compassion and to provide for all who don't want to try. What I and you and many others describe as being the true problem behind single payer is who will be running it - big government. They can't even provide good health care to our troops.
It all about presonal attacks for Truth rather than a give and take dialouge. That is exactly what is wrong this country - people like truth that cannot handle the truth - only their personal agenda and talking points from their political party.
Posted by Jack Bauer on July 28, 2007 08:57 AMTruth said:
"In other words, you and Johnny are fringe extremists with whom very, very few people agree, and with whom absolutely no people agree who think of the United States as a caring and compassionate country."
Can you show me where in the Constitution it says the purpose of the government is to be caring and compassionate? You are confusing the word 'country' with the word 'government'.
We are a caring and compassionate country. Just look at all the private charities we have. These charities rely on voluntary, not government-coerced, donations.
The problem with your ideology, aside from the fact that it runs counter to the principles of our Constitution, is that your good intentions have unintended consequences.
You tout the benefits of child labor laws ad nauseum. But, those laws actual hurt the very people you wanted to help: the poor. If a family is so poor that they need the income from their capable children, why can't their kids work at McDonalds or the local hardware store? Instead, the family is either robbed of extra sources of income or the source of income stems from criminal activity.
You would argue that it is better for the kids to go to school then have to work. Why can't they do both? And, why can't they work as apprentices so they can learn a valuable skill much earlier than many of their non-working, Nintendo-playing peers?
So, your caring and compassionate child labor laws punishes poor families, especially inner-city black families. Now, we either have young kids selling drugs for income or simply becoming boob-tube morons with too much time on their hands.
Mr. Bauer,
You have to ask yourself, what kind of person would actually choose the word "Truth" as their screen name? Methinks he tries too hard to appear truthful.
True truthfulness is easy to spot, though, and doesn't require one's name to actually include the word truth in it. Just speak the truth and you are truthful. The simple act of calling yourself Truth does not mean your actual words are not deceitful.
Posted by John II on July 28, 2007 09:54 AMJohn II, if you think there are provisions of the child labor laws that are undesirable, why is it you don't complain about those provisions rather than about the whole law? Surely you would not call a law undesirable which prohibited, for example, the employment of a ten year old in a dangerous construction job.
Isn't it true that the reason you want to throw out the baby with the bath water is really that you don't think the federal government should play any part at all in the regulation of child labor, no matter how desirable and needed the regulation might be? My impression from your various posts is that you want all of these various regulatory laws thrown out, both the desirable and the undesirable portions. In other words, you are being less than forthright when you claim that your opposition is because portions of laws are undesirable.
Truth states
"Isn't it true that the reason you want to throw out the baby with the bath water is really that you don't think the federal government should play any part at all in the regulation of child labor, no matter how desirable and needed the regulation might be?"
Are you not wanting to do the same with Healthcare and Socialized medicine?
Posted by bwr on July 28, 2007 02:54 PM"Isn't it true that the reason you want to throw out the baby with the bath water is really that you don't think the federal government should play any part at all in the regulation of child labor,"
That is true. It should be left to each State to decide on it's own child labor laws. Read the 10th Amendment.
Posted by John II on July 28, 2007 03:33 PMGood point, bwr. Instead of tweaking our current health care system to improve it, Truth (and others) want to throw the whole thing away.
Posted by John II on July 28, 2007 03:37 PM"In other words, you are being less than forthright when you claim that your opposition is because portions of laws are undesirable."
Oh, I glossed over this accusation. No, I'm not being less than forthright. I oppose some laws on multiple levels. For example, I oppose the minimum wage law because it increases unemployment among poor young black males. I also oppose it because the federal government has no constitutional right to tell the States what kind of (if any) wage laws they should enforce.
Posted by John II on July 28, 2007 03:46 PMbwr: Are you not wanting to do the same with Healthcare and Socialized medicine?"
Of course not. I like the kind of medical treatment that is available to the upper class. I just want to make more of it available to more people. The baby is health care; the bath water is the way so many poor and even middle class people are denied it.
Posted by Truth on July 28, 2007 04:37 PMNice Try Truth. Spin it Dude Spin it. Change it any way you want. Do you even care that you contradict yourself and change your terms to fit your view? Are you sure you are not a political lobbyist? I am glad to see you on here and people showing how you manipulate data, information and conversation to fit your views. Even those that usually agree with you are keeping their distance from you. The crap I have seen on here makes Rove, McCurry, Carville and Co look like normal, moral people.
Posted by bwr on July 28, 2007 06:45 PMbwr, good for you. Stick to the topic. Of course, the topic of this thread is Truth.
Whatever your chronological age, you act like a little boy. But I must admit I get a kick out of your little tantrums.
Posted by Truth on July 29, 2007 06:57 AMIt would be easy to stick to topic Truth if you wouldnt spin it around to every thing but the topic and your distortions. You spin and distort what people say to fit your view and when called out you are the one throwing a tantrum. Yes I got a bit mean by calling you a lobbyist and comparing you to the "best". You attack people as you see fit but when it comes back at you, you are the one that throws a fit. I am the one who tried to make nice a long time ago and you took that as a weakness and attacked.
So yes keep it to topic here. Go to finding your views online, copy, paste and then post as some great find. What you find is crap we have been talking about, and your information only tells a small part of story.
So tell me how HC is broken and tell us that the only way is to have Govt run it (just like other countries, except of course Chile)
We try to discuss costs, details, comparison of data and choices. You provide nothing but "if other countries do it, so should we" When we try to discuss differences in those countries you throw a fit and throw more distortions and namecalling out.
So yes lets keep on topic here Truth. Listen to your own crap once in awhile and try to be civil and others will be civil to you.
Posted by bwr on July 29, 2007 09:09 AMbwr, please don't start being civil to me. You're more fun the way you are.
Posted by Truth on July 29, 2007 09:39 AMYes Truth holding you to the facts may seem uncivil to you, and I doubt you know what civility and being a gentleman is like, but again it may have been uncivil to call you a lobbyist.
But if I recall you threw your tantrums and refused to look at details and analysis. You are the one that melted down and you are the one out belittling people you disagree with. Again it is truly easy to do that to people in your mind as you dont have to face them on a personal level.
Posted by bwr on July 29, 2007 10:00 AMGeez, bwr, it sounds to me like you need a good nap.
Posted by Truth on July 29, 2007 10:35 AMI can fix the entire health care system and everyone will have free healthcare without costing people a dime or raising taxes.
Change your last name to Rodriguez,Garcia,Lopez etc....
There you go . Now you can stop arguing.
Good point, AMEN!
Posted by Jaun II on July 29, 2007 11:59 AMGood point, AMEN!
Posted by Juan II on July 29, 2007 11:59 AMIs that the best smack you can lay Truth. You cant keep up in context, now it is gradeschool smack.
Please tell me what you see in a Socialized healthcare system. What do you see as conversion costs? Net Jobs lost or gained(using degree of job measurement that encompasses secondary and tertiary job loss outside the direct line of fire)
Productivity loss or gain in Medical hardware, applications, procedures, and advancements of HC as it pertains to Patient care?
How will this productivity loss or gain will affect not only the US healthcare, but world healthcare?
You want to compare countries, well lets compare countries. Why the disparity between diseases such as diabetes, cancer, etc.? Hint! Not all or nearly so due to preventative medicine.
Since your smack sucks, lets see what your views are there
Posted by bwr on July 29, 2007 12:27 PMI am fortunate to have health insurance. My husbands union has provided health care ever since he joined. Though he does pay for some of it because they take a certain amount out of his check for insurance. We have never been without insurance,but have had different insurance companies and co-pays,and partial payments etc...
I do not think it is the job of the government to provide health care for everyone and have the tax payers pay for it.My husband works and pays for his own.Other people do have access to free health care. Some do fund raisers for hospital bills for certain cases.
Some hospitals will just write it off.Some will accept payments,There are alot of options. There are even low cost clinics that charge little or nothing and now Walmart and target are offering over 100 generic drugs for $4.
There are alot of options out there without having to bring in the government and citizens to pay for peoples health care.
I am going to have breast cancer surgery on Thursday. They caught it very early and I was fortunate. I will confess I am one of those people who wait and wait to go to a Dr. before getting help. That has changed however after 12 years of trying to find a kind,helpful and caring Dr. she is the reason why I went and had a mammogram and they found a small cancerous tumor.If I hadn't found such a great Dr. I would never had known I had a small cancerous growth inside of me and it could have been really bad.
Our insurance will cover everything but we still have certain thresholds to meet before everything is covered in full.
Even having insurance you still need to pay something,whether it be c0-pays or 20% or whatever their rules.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on July 29, 2007 03:53 PMbwr, I'm trying to figure out who asks the most questions, you or John II. What do you think?
Posted by Truth on July 29, 2007 04:04 PM"bwr, I'm trying to figure out who asks the most questions, you or John II. What do you think?
Posted by Truth on July 29, 2007 04:04 PM"
What do I think? I think that your last post was another clever way for you to avoid answering to the half arsed data and information you post on here regarding HC. I dont even think your mentors Carville and Rove would even give you passing grades on this one
Posted by bwr on July 29, 2007 06:20 PM