There is a good point though, how did Rove and Armitage get a "get out of prosecution free" card? I guess because Fitgerald could never get to the bottom of it all because of the obfuscation/obstruction of justice IIRC, where Libby played his part well.

The army said the crew of the ship would be questioned by police, while all humnitarian goods found on board would be transferred to Gaza by land Gee, was there any country in the world that would accept a boatload of Jews, fleeing from Europe before, during or after WWII? Heartless doesn't even begin to describe it. More like anti-semitism.

Gee, was there any country in the world that would accept a boatload of Jews, fleeing from Europe before, during or after WWII? I apply the same words to that ...despicable and heartless. Every country should be ashamed that allowed to happen. More like anti-semitism. I know, whenever one disagrees with the policy/actions of a country they are smeared. Same with...if one disagrees with any of O's policies, then one is anti-black. It's a current strategy and so unfair.

off to see Lucia di Lammermoor today live on satellite from the Met. With Anna Nebrebko and Rolando Villazon...whoopee! Her first performance since she gave birth in September. Actually, the opera premiered last Tuesday, I think. (I'd give a small part of my soul to be there live.) They are hotties in the world of opera... LOL. Bet I bored you...(next time I'll say *OPERA* and you can scrool), but opera is my real passion. And I've been looking forward to this all year.

I know, whenever one disagrees with the policy/actions of a country they are smeared. The BBC buried the relevant part at the very end, which I posted above...if you bothered to read it through. Instead, it led with Israel seizing humanitarian aid, which it wasn't, thereby inflaming the situation and intentinally misleading most. I call that anti-semetic. Same with...if one disagrees with any of O's policies, then one is anti-black. Better to just call anything he does socialist, right?

A far more balanced report: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/05/mideast/05mideast-423682.php

It's hard to find any balanced reports to do with the mess in the Middle East. I often read the Italian and French papers to get their POV as well. Hard to escape the biased world. :-( "You should publish"! (Dorine), As long as it's not in a blog. Then she won't read it, Moon. ;-)) LOL, I'm with Evelyn on blogs. Who has all that time? I've learned thanks to my DH to be concise and colorful. ;-D It's hard to keep up with his erudition.

(Moon) Who has all that time? I don't get the impression that time, or lack of it, is her concern in respect to them. ;-))

While I'm kind of surprised to read this in the Washington Post Op-Ed page, it really does address the material points of much of the discussion here in the past couple of weeks. I had to LOL when I read that first quote from him a few days ago. Ironic statement actually, in light of doing so much to guarantee an almost universal lack of respect. Mr. Cheney's Blind Spot The former vice president still doesn't recognize the damage done by his terrorism policies. Saturday, February 7, 2009; Page A12 "THE UNITED States needs to be not so much loved as it needs to be respected." So declared former vice president Dick Cheney in an interview this week with Politico. Mr. Cheney is right -- which is why he should be apologizing rather than defending the extreme Bush administration policies on detention and interrogation that he championed. Mr. Cheney asserted that the administration's antiterrorism policies may have been unpopular but were necessary, and he offered sweeping and unverifiable pronouncements about their effectiveness. "If it hadn't been for what we did -- with respect to the terrorist surveillance program or enhanced interrogation techniques for high-value detainees, the Patriot Act and so forth -- then we would have been attacked again," Mr. Cheney claimed. Characteristically self-assured, Mr. Cheney perpetuated the myth that abiding by the rule of law puts the country in danger. In a thinly veiled attack on the Obama administration, he scoffed at those who are "more concerned about reading the rights to an al-Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans." This is not only a mischaracterization of Mr. Obama's position, it is a false choice. The Bush administration deserves credit for shepherding the United States through seven years without another attack, but it may be decades before information is declassified that could shed light on whether this can be attributed to such practices as waterboarding and the lawless detention of suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Indeed, military and intelligence officials from Republican and Democratic administrations have suggested that they probably cannot, and they have repeatedly argued that traditional intelligence-gathering techniques are sufficient to thwart the kinds of attacks Mr. Cheney warns against. They have also stressed that the coercive techniques advanced by Mr. Cheney produce unreliable information from prisoners desperate to avoid further agony. [Ed. note - My emphasis] Most profoundly, Mr. Cheney fails to recognize the damage these policies have done to the country's reputation at large. They have alienated even once-stalwart allies, and they have played into the hands of terrorist leaders, who use the sordid images from Abu Ghraib and tales of abuse at secret CIA prisons overseas as political ammunition to recruit the next wave of suicide bombers and foot soldiers. Thanks to Mr. Cheney and his allies, global respect for the United States is at a low point. Part of the mission of preventing attacks must be to repair that damage. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603175.html

Dorine, all's fair in love and war? "Guilty until proven innocent" is my terrorist ethic.

Yes, Moon. I understand. ;-)

"Part of the mission of preventing attacks must be to repair that damage." We shall have to wait and see if that strategy is correct, won't we. I am not so sure. Wonder who wrote that..some blogger???;-) BTW i don't read blogs , Facebook, Spacebook ,... whatever...: a)They are narcissistic: "Who cares what you think?" (Rhetorical "you", of course;-)) b)I don't want to devote my time to read :a) c) I don't have to give any reasons:-))))))) Opera was fantastic, but Rolando Villazon was ill and some new Polish tenor had to sub for him'Piotr Beczala. Interesting stage interpretation as a Victorian ghost story. Worked. Better to just call anything he does socialist, right? You no like when I call you Comrades?;-))) Testy, testy,,,;-)

"Part of the mission of preventing attacks must be to repair that damage." (Evelyn) We shall have to wait and see if that strategy is correct, won't we. Very true. But considering that after the militaristic "War on Terror" began (in Iraq), terrorist attacks worldwide increased (please feel free to Google those stats - Condie Rice tried hard to keep them unreleased, and did for a while but failed in the end). I suppose there's always room for improvement. :-) Wonder who wrote that..some blogger???;-) *snort*

The Senate "compromise".... February 06, 2009 What the Senate's cut: Funds for states and schools Here're the cuts, according to Sen. Leahy's office. Based on this list, the governors who've been the strongest supporters of the stimulus bill, because it offered them some relief in a terrible budget year, will cry the loudest. Schools, environmental programs and broadband expansion projects also take a hit. Billion dollar cuts $40 billion State Fiscal Stabilization $16 billion School Construction $7.5 billion of State Incentive Grants $5.8 billion Health Prevention Activity $4.5 billion GSA $3.5 billion Higher Ed Construction (Eliminated) $3.5 billion Federal Bldgs Greening $2.25 Neighborhood Stabilization (Eliminate) $2 billion broadband $2 billion HIT Grants $1.25 billion project based rental $1 billion Head Start/Early Start $1.2 billion in Retrofiting Project 8 Housing $1 billion Energy Loan Guarantees Million dollar cuts $100 million FSA modernization $50 million CSERES Research $65 million Watershed Rehab $30 million SD Salaries $100 Distance Learning $98 million School Nutrition $50 million aquaculture $100 million NIST $100 million NOAA $100 million Law Enforcement Wireless $50 million Detention Trustee $25 million Marshalls Construction $100 million FBI Construction $300 million Federal Prisons $300 million BYRNE Formula $140 million BYRNE Competitive $10 million State and Local Law Enforcement $50 million NASA $50 million Aeronautics $50 million Exploration $50 million Cross Agency Support $200 million NSF $100 million Science $300 million Fed Hybrid Vehicles $50 million from DHS $200 million TSA $122 million for Coast Guard Cutters, modifies use $25 million Fish and Wildlife $55 million Historic Preservation $20 million working capital fund $200 million Superfund $165 million Forest Svc Capital Improvement $90 million State & Private Wildlife Fire Management $75 million Smithsonian $600 million Title I (NCLB) http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/washington/2009/02/what-the-senates-cut-funds-for-states-and-schools.html

And here, you can see the requests for funds from Governors for your specific city in the Mainstreet Economic Recovery Report http://www.usmayors.org/mainstreeteconomicrecovery/stimulussurveyparticipants.asp

Good! Cut some more, I say! Suuuueeeeeeeeee;-)

Are you serious? Wow. I guess you don't want any of the jobs created in your town they're looking for.

"Wish lists"....I saw the list in my newspaprer. Actually, the paper was critical of most of them. "Amtrak Feasibility"...please. Many of these projects are state responsibility...not the feds. Many are social funds, don't belong in this bill. Debate them separately. FYI I am glad NIH didn't take a hit. NEA, yes.

Many of these projects are state responsibility...not the feds. By definition, they would be, i.e., state responsibiltiy. But that's the whole point. Only the Federal govt would have the money to kickstart the economy, just as only the Federal govt has the money to bail out the private sector too.

(Evelyn) Debate them separately. Ok. Then which should be included? What kind of projects stay in, and which in a separate bill? Though at the rate their going with this one, years would go by before they got to voting on the second one with all the other stuff.

I think that only the projects that create immediate jobs and/or relief to hurting people/sectors should be included, with the remainder either dealt with separately (e.g., debated and passed individually) or included in the normal budget process (i.e., building renovations for the Commerce Dept.)

Ditto!

(Evelyn)Many of these projects are state responsibility...not the feds. But the states (and the cities) are hurting so badly. And the local level is where the money has the best chance of being put to use right away, in saving jobs, projects, etc. This Senate compromise bill is sad. But, hey, let's cut taxes. I'll make sure I don't spend that extra $10 a week all in one spot.:-( Many are social funds, don't belong in this bill. Debate them separately. Where they'd never pass, thanks to Republicans. Obama now has the good will of most of the American people behind him who recognize the need for swift action. You strike whem the iron is hot.

(Mari)Obama now has the good will of most of the American people behind him who recognize the need for swift action. You strike whem the iron is hot. Oh I agree on the good will....62% is nothing to sneaze about. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_approval_index And personally, I like him. But this bill is not his bill...it's a Nancy Pelosi House bill. And Personally, I don't like her;-) I don't think he would not have written this bill in the current form. And in the current form, the bill only has support of 38% of the people. Big diff. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37 Like I said yesterday...pass the components of the bill that strictly have to do with job creation and stimulating the economy. With assistance to the unemployed. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/february_2009/62_want_stimulus_plan_to_have_more_tax_cuts_less_spending The other section ....later. You know, Mari...I don't want him to fail. He's my president too. But I feel he will with this bill. But what do I know, LOL....Not even the brainy econs do. .... seems to be a crap -shoot

IMO, Obama should sit down with McCain and see what can be done. I would make McCain his rep with the GOP. He needs a maverick to get this bill passed, and some pork should be trimmed, asap. It needs to pass.

(Evelyn)you know, Mari...I don't want him to fail. He's my president too. I know you feel that way, and I appreciate that. For the record, I don't like Pelosi *or* Reid either. But what do I know, LOL....Not even the brainy econs do. .... seems to be a crap -shoot It truly is uncharted territory. Hey, what do I know, too. My gut tells me tax cuts aren't the way. And you're right about the economists. Nobody knows nuthin.'

(Mari) I don't like Pelosi *or* Reid either. Me, three.

Me, four.

Honestly, I didn't make this up.....Comrades;-) http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

News conference: V. eloquent. My question would have been: "Mr President, you speak of the ideological rigidity in Washington...why did you pick the most partisan, ideological rigid person in Washinton, Nancy Pelosi, to write that bill for you." Also...he keeps saying that Republicans only want tax cuts.... Wrong! They want infrastructure spending in addition to tax cuts. But in general...he did v. well....a little long.. Every answer was a mini-speech. (Soft-ball questions...) But I thought he did v. well.

I'm posting this for the sake of discussion and opinions. I have no opinion yet as I only skimmed parts of it. I heard someone on Rachel Maddow's show, Sen. Nelson maybe?, explain his opposition to the school construction idea. Op-Ed Columnist The Destructive Center By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: February 8, 2009 What do you call someone who eliminates hundreds of thousands of American jobs, deprives millions of adequate health care and nutrition, undermines schools, but offers a $15,000 bonus to affluent people who flip their houses? A proud centrist. For that is what the senators who ended up calling the tune on the stimulus bill just accomplished. Even if the original Obama plan � around $800 billion in stimulus, with a substantial fraction of that total given over to ineffective tax cuts � had been enacted, it wouldn�t have been enough to fill the looming hole in the U.S. economy, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will amount to $2.9 trillion over the next three years. Yet the centrists did their best to make the plan weaker and worse. One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending. The original plan also included badly needed spending on school construction; $16 billion of that spending was cut. It included aid to the unemployed, especially help in maintaining health care � cut. Food stamps � cut. All in all, more than $80 billion was cut from the plan, with the great bulk of those cuts falling on precisely the measures that would do the most to reduce the depth and pain of this slump. On the other hand, the centrists were apparently just fine with one of the worst provisions in the Senate bill, a tax credit for home buyers. Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research calls this the �flip your house to your brother� provision: it will cost a lot of money while doing nothing to help the economy. All in all, the centrists� insistence on comforting the comfortable while afflicting the afflicted will, if reflected in the final bill, lead to substantially lower employment and substantially more suffering. But how did this happen? I blame President Obama�s belief that he can transcend the partisan divide � a belief that warped his economic strategy. After all, many people expected Mr. Obama to come out with a really strong stimulus plan, reflecting both the economy�s dire straits and his own electoral mandate. Instead, however, he offered a plan that was clearly both too small and too heavily reliant on tax cuts. Why? Because he wanted the plan to have broad bipartisan support, and believed that it would. Not long ago administration strategists were talking about getting 80 or more votes in the Senate. Mr. Obama�s postpartisan yearnings may also explain why he didn�t do something crucially important: speak forcefully about how government spending can help support the economy. Instead, he let conservatives define the debate, waiting until late last week before finally saying what needed to be said � that increasing spending is the whole point of the plan. And Mr. Obama got nothing in return for his bipartisan outreach. Not one Republican voted for the House version of the stimulus plan, which was, by the way, better focused than the original administration proposal. In the Senate, Republicans inveighed against �pork� � although the wasteful spending they claimed to have identified (much of it was fully justified) was a trivial share of the bill�s total. And they decried the bill�s cost � even as 36 out of 41 Republican senators voted to replace the Obama plan with $3 trillion, that�s right, $3 trillion in tax cuts over 10 years. So Mr. Obama was reduced to bargaining for the votes of those centrists. And the centrists, predictably, extracted a pound of flesh � not, as far as anyone can tell, based on any coherent economic argument, but simply to demonstrate their centrist mojo. They probably would have demanded that $100 billion or so be cut from anything Mr. Obama proposed; by coming in with such a low initial bid, the president guaranteed that the final deal would be much too small. Such are the perils of negotiating with yourself. Now, House and Senate negotiators have to reconcile their versions of the stimulus, and it�s possible that the final bill will undo the centrists� worst. And Mr. Obama may be able to come back for a second round. But this was his best chance to get decisive action, and it fell short. So has Mr. Obama learned from this experience? Early indications aren�t good. For rather than acknowledge the failure of his political strategy and the damage to his economic strategy, the president tried to put a postpartisan happy face on the whole thing. �Democrats and Republicans came together in the Senate and responded appropriately to the urgency this moment demands,� he declared on Saturday, and �the scale and scope of this plan is right.� No, they didn�t, and no, it isn�t. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?em

Newsweek Plans Makeover to Fit a Smaller Audience http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/business/media/09newsweek.html?em

So GM is letting go of 10K people. It amazes me how so many companies are just lopping off massive amts of employees....just like that! My question is, if these people are so expendable, what were they doing in their jobs anyway? Was there really enough work to go around? The ones for GM are salaried positions, so I imagine that's not any factory workers, except management. I know some of the bigger pharmaceutical companies who have let employees go were quite employee heavy (esp in the field) and it was overkill with the amount of reps they had. But they don't lay off so suddenly. They can tell a quite a ways in advance if and when they need layoffs which is dependent on their pipeline (or lack thereof). Getting a no-go from the FDA on a new drug while in the midst of ramping up staff for a new launch is the only time I think they'd have layoffs more suddenly.

Oh dear....:-(( Looks like Tom got his last laugh;-) From Bloomberg... Ruin Your Health With the Obama Stimulus Plan: Betsy McCaughey Feb. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Republican Senators are questioning whether President Barack Obama�s stimulus bill contains the right mix of tax breaks and cash infusions to jump-start the economy. Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion. These provisions reflect the handiwork of Tom Daschle, until recently the nominee to head the Health and Human Services Department. Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version). The bill�s health rules will affect �every individual in the United States� (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors. But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and �guide� your doctor�s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, �Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.� According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and �learn to operate less like solo practitioners.� Keeping doctors informed of the newest medical findings is important, but enforcing uniformity goes too far. New Penalties Hospitals and doctors that are not �meaningful users� of the new system will face penalties. �Meaningful user� isn�t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose �more stringent measures of meaningful use over time� (511, 518, 540-541) What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the �tough� decisions elected politicians won�t make. The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle�s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept �hopeless diagnoses� and �forgo experimental treatments,� and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system. Elderly Hardest Hit Daschle says health-care reform �will not be pain free.� Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt. Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464). The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle�s book. This board approves or rejects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis. In 2006, a U.K. health board decreed that elderly patients with macular degeneration had to wait until they went blind in one eye before they could get a costly new drug to save the other eye. It took almost three years of public protests before the board reversed its decision. Hidden Provisions If the Obama administration�s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later. The stimulus bill will affect every part of health care, from medical and nursing education, to how patients are treated and how much hospitals get paid. The bill allocates more funding for this bureaucracy than for the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force combined (90-92, 174-177, 181). Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration�s health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. �If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it,� he said. �The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.� More Scrutiny Needed On Friday, President Obama called it �inexcusable and irresponsible� for senators to delay passing the stimulus bill. In truth, this bill needs more scrutiny. The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation�s gross domestic product. Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry. Imagine limiting growth and innovation in the electronics or auto industry during this downturn. This stimulus is dangerous to your health and the economy. (Betsy McCaughey is former lieutenant governor of New York and is an adjunct senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. The opinions expressed are her own.) To contact the writer of this column: Betsy McCaughey at Betsymross@aol.com Last Updated: February 9, 2009 00:01 EST http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_mccaughey&sid=aLzfDxfbwhzs

Well, this article doesn't give me enough detail to really express any comprehensive opinion pro or con about it. I'd have to read more about Daschle's ideas in his book or elsewhere and what provisions are/would be in the stimulus bill. I don't really have the time to be commenting so much now, but being in the healthcare industry as long as I have, watching it evolve to its current form and straddling both the clinical and business sides of it previously and in my current job I'll say one thing.....changing the healthcare system itself is only part of the solution. *People need to take more responsibility for themselves and their health.* There is a noted lack of accountability on the patient's fault for not making sometimes even basic efforts to maintain their health properly then expecting the healthcare system to fix them....at no cost or further responsibility to them. Does it sound like I have a "blame the victim" mentality? Indeed I do. Because some people need to be blamed. Part of saving the healthcare system has to include a huge attitude adjustment by the general public about their expectations and responsibilities. I could go on and on. Too bad Leslie is pretty much too busy anymore to pop by. I'd like to hear her take, but I'm 95% sure we have many of the same views in that respect.

There is a noted lack of accountability on the patient's fault Accountability on the patient's part, I meant.

One of the best features of the original plan was aid to cash-strapped state governments, which would have provided a quick boost to the economy while preserving essential services. But the centrists insisted on a $40 billion cut in that spending. LOL at Krugman's use of "centrists." O was feisty last night. Until now, he's been too nice. I liked when he said maybe I should have sent them a bill with no tax cuts, then they could have put some in and taken credit for it. Hang in there, Barack, yeah, it's business as usual along party lines, sickening. I agree with him 100% that only the federal government is big enough to sufficiently spend our way out of this mess and into true stimulus. And along the line of what Krugman wrote: Philly now has a $1 billion deficit and it's not from profligate spending. This is a direct result of investment losses to the city's pension funds, plus reduced tax revenue from lost jobs. If our mayor, a really good guy (and early Hillary supporter), even cuts the budget by 10%, we stand to lose 1,000 police officers, hundreds of firefighters, and vital emergency response services. The big cities are gettin' killed here. And these "centrists" want to give somebody a tax deduction for buying a house, at a time when the credit markets ars still so frozen that no one will lend them the money to buy anyway.

Yet the bill treats health care the way European governments do Are there any UK people here or other Europeans, or Canadians who would stand up and say I'll trade my system for the U.S.'s system? I betcha . .. not. They'd be crazy to.

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. Medicare is supposed to be instituting a policy that they won't pay hospitals/facilities whose patients require extra treatment as a result of developing pressure wounds or infections while in the facility for other treatment. I don't know if it went into effect yet or not.

Another thing for healthcare reform, stop giving drug companies govt $$$ handouts.

I am not willing for my Fed $$$ to bail-out California's liberal largesse or others who fall in that category. I come from a conservative state whose banks were not involved in devious investments /loans... Whose mortage companies did not liberally pedal houses to anyone... Yes, we have a deficit..mostly because oil is down. But we are not desperate. evelyn *proud centrist* ;-) FYI many UKers and Canadians carry private health insurance on top of paying for NH just so they can control their own medical care and not be at the mercy of the government.

(Evelyn)I come from a conservative state whose banks were not involved in devious investments /loans... Whose mortage companies did not liberally pedal houses to anyone... "My" state didn't do that either. But I'm not a State-an. I'm an American. I am not willing for my Fed $$$ to bail-out California's liberal largesse Where's the largesse in the proposed bills? FYI many UKers and Canadians carry private health insurance on top of paying for NH And I would love to hear from anyone of them on this board--not trying to draw anyone into our arguments, just a simple yes/no--whether they'd give up their system for ours.

I am not willing for my Fed $$$ to bail-out California's liberal largesse or others who fall in that category. Didn't the first bailout already do that?

(Evelyn)I come from a conservative state whose banks were not involved in devious investments /loans... Whose mortage companies did not liberally pedal houses to anyone... Not this time directly, as the originators of the scheme, but can we hear it for Penn Square, another devastating crisis, full of slick schemers. That one took down some of the biggest in the country and originated from a shopping mall in OKC.

Pssst....you "accidentally";-) forgot to give a date on when that occured.... we've learned...nice if other states did too.... Tulsa World...Feb 10th "It confirmed what we had been hearing anecdotally from our members � that in Oklahoma business is good, that banks are making loans, that the banks welcome the increase in Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. coverage. It just reinforced our belief that it's good to be in Oklahoma," Hazelton said Monday in a phone interview" http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=51&articleid=20090210_51_E3_Basedo80981&archive=yes Of course, you understand, our economy revolves around oil and gas.... which is down:-((((( But have no fear...Comrades....the stimulus package will pass; it will be rammed down people's throats. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_stimulus_package/50_say_stimulus_plan_likely_to_make_things_worse

Awwwww!! I've always been a koala freak. Koala rescued from Australia's wildfire wasteland HEALESVILLE, Australia � The koala moved gingerly on scorched paws, crossing the blackened landscape as the fire patrol passed. Clearly in pain, the animal stopped when it saw firefighter David Tree following behind. "It was amazing, he turned around, sat on his bum and sort of looked at me with (a look) like, put me out of my misery," Tree told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "I yelled out for a bottle of water. I unscrewed the bottle, tipped it up on his lips and he just took it naturally. He kept reaching for the bottle, almost like a baby." The team called animal welfare officers as it resumed its patrols on Sunday, the day after deadly firestorms swept southern Victoria state. "I love nature, and I've handled koalas before. They're not the friendliest things, but I wanted to help him," Tree said. Tree says he's spoken to wildlife officials, and the koala, nicknamed Sam, is doing fine. And he, it turns out, is a she. The rescue was one small bright moment in Australia's wildfire tragedy. Thousands of acres (hectares) have been burned out, almost 1,000 homes destroyed and more than 180 people killed. Countless animals were killed in the disaster, which hit farming and forest regions to the north and east of the Victoria state capital of Melbourne, and many more fled in panic. The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals said it was establishing shelters to care for thousands of pets and livestock affected by the disaster. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_wildfires_koala_rescue

Pssst....you "accidentally";-) forgot to give a date on when that occured.... No, I didn't. It is irrelevant to the argument. As I recall, the country is still called the United States of America. The effect of Penn Square's fraudulent practices affected institutions all over the world. Yet I don't recall anybody claiming that his/her local bank didn't participate and, therefore, a bailout shouldn't take place.

(Mari) And I would love to hear from anyone of them on this board--not trying to draw anyone into our arguments, just a simple yes/no--whether they'd give up their system for ours. I'm Canadian and no, I would not want to give up our health care system for the one in the USA. But, our system is hardly perfect. We have a great deal to learn and adopt from other countries. As with most government run organizations, ours is filled with inefficiancies and waste. This of course results in "insufficient funding" which means there are terrible waits for high tech tests and surgery. By and large though, we are all in it together. Just because you have money doesn't (necessarily) mean you have better or quicker access to services. (There are always a few exceptions but I won't gon't into a long story here.)

Sandy, does one have the option to subscribe to a private insurance? Of course, still paying the extra taxes for the national health care. There are Canadians who come to the US for their medical care. Tests, diagnosis etc. I have met some at MDAnderson Cancer Center.

(Sandy) there are terrible waits for high tech tests and surgery. As I've been reading about more and more is, are these tests and surgeries actually useful and necessary. Just read an article about certain scans for back problems aren't truly worth the cost per outcome. Unfortunately, testing is done here so frequently as it....brings in $$ and is used for MD's CYA since we're such a litigious society as well. That's not to say they are completely unnecessary, but there is some overutilization for the outcomes that are obtained in some instances.

is used for MD's CYA since we're such a litigious society as well. do you blame them? Tort Reform!! If I want a test, I don't want anyone to tell me I can't have it....even if I pay for it. Heard Tim Geithner today ....in front of Baking Committee and taking Q&A V. impressive. But not enough for the DOW: down 381. No details??? Why did you do it, Tim? Don't they ever learn from Hillarycare? Bah!

(Evelyn) .in front of Baking Committee Who's the chairman of this committee....Sara Lee or the Pillsbury Dough Boy? :-D do you blame them? That's a murky road to go down. Expensive for doctors for the malpractice insurance that's for sure. That's definitely something Leslie could speak to as that practice's business specializes in high risk patients.

If I want a test, I don't want anyone to tell me I can't have it....even if I pay for it. If you pay for it, be my guest. If you have a spare 4-5 figures lying around for medical tests, go for it. If Medicare/Medicaid (or any other non-commercial insurance) is paying for it, that affects me as a taxpayer, I might not be right there with you on that. Frankly, I think people over a certain income bracket, regardless of their age, shouldn't be eligible for Medicare.

Expensive for doctors for the malpractice insurance that's for sure. That's definitely something Leslie could speak to as that practice's business specializes in high risk patients. Didn't we already email for about two weeks on this very subject already. Flogging that old horse some more. I'm gonna call the SPCA. ;-) Frankly, I think people over a certain income bracket, regardless of their age, shouldn't be eligible for Medicare. Me too.

(Evelyn) Sandy, does one have the option to subscribe to a private insurance? There are organizations that are testing this in the courts but so far, no you cannot purchase separate insurance to pay for anything that is covered by medicare either in whole or in part. Nor can you pay for it directly yourself. Additional insurance that people buy is for things not covered or only partially covered by medicare. Those are the rules but for whatever reason, which I fail to understand, they are circumvented. My sister, when she was living in Alberta, paid $$ to queue jump and get an MRI done months earlier than if she had had to wait under the normal system. I don't know how the lab got away with charging her. Similarly, my son here in BC paid to get in to see a specialist earlier than if he had waited for a medicare appointment. Again, doctors are not permitted to charge extra for services provided by medicare so I don't know how he got away with it. There is such anger at the long waits that I can see a time when "for profit" services are almost inevitable. But for the moment the idea of a two-tier system (public side by side with private) is an anathma to most Canadians. The idea that those with money can have better or faster health services than those without money, just doesn't sell politically.

(me) Additional insurance that people buy is for things not covered or only partially covered by medicare. I know that doesn't make sense after what I said just previously but there are some things that insurance/you can pay for when medicare pays for part. For example, here in BC medicare will pay for some or all of our prescription drugs after a deductible which is based on family income. You can get insurance to cover the excess. However, there is supposed to be no "extra billing" for doctors' fees, hospital ward fees, MRI's, x-rays, blood tests and the like.

As I was saying this morning, they need to stop the drug company involvement. Ain't really gonna happen, but needs to. * FEBRUARY 9, 2009, 8:55 P.M. ET Drug Makers Fight Stimulus Provision By ALICIA MUNDY WASHINGTON -- The drug and medical-device industries are mobilizing to gut a provision in the stimulus bill that would spend $1.1 billion on research comparing medical treatments, portraying it as the first step to government rationing. The fight over the provision is highlighting the tensions behind President Barack Obama's plan to overhaul the health-care system. The administration hopes to expand coverage while limiting use of treatments that don't work well, but any efforts that might reduce coverage are politically sensitive. The House version of the stimulus package sent shudders through the drug and medical-device industry. In a staff report describing the bill, the House said treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive "will no longer be prescribed." A Senate version backed by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) doesn't mention cost as a subject to be studied. And the industry won a battle to add the word "clinical" in describing the research -- adding to the implication that the comparison studies won't look at bang for the buck. The final language is likely to be hammered out later this week in a House-Senate conference committee. Mr. Obama is under pressure to find long-run health-cost savings as projections show that Medicare spending is on track to severely deplete the federal budget. "Without question, we're headed for more of a public and private push for which medicines work best at the lowest cost in particular patients," said Mark McClellan, former Medicare and Medicaid chief under President George W. Bush. The $1.1 billion in research funding would be doled out to the National Institutes of Health and other government bodies. "We should focus on producing the best unbiased science possible," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), a strong proponent of the House language. Mr. Obama supported research into comparative effectiveness during his campaign. Administration officials and leading Democrats in Congress say the idea will help government programs direct their dollars to treatments that are worth the money. Officially, drug and device makers don't object to that sentiment. But they warn of a slippery slope where the government ends up axing useful treatments just because they cost too much. They have lined up patient groups that get industry funding to lobby Capitol Hill. A coalition called the Partnership to Improve Patient Care includes the lobbying arms of the drug, device and biotechnology industries as well as patient-advocacy groups and medical-professional societies. Coalition spokesman David Di Martino says the research envisioned in the House bill may be used "in an inappropriate manner that may limit treatment options for patients." A public-relations firm that is part of one of Washington's most influential lobby shops, Barbour Griffith Rogers, is representing the coalition. A major goal is to give industry a seat at the table when federal officials decide what to research with the $1.1 billion. Companies "want to control the data, how it is reviewed, evaluated, and whether the public and government find out about it and use it," said Harry Selker, a Tufts University professor who directs its clinical-research program. That also worries Jerry Avorn of Harvard Medical School, a frequent drug-industry critic. Comparative research "has the potential to tell us which drugs and treatments are safe, and which ones work," he said. "This is not information that the private sector will generate on its own, or that the industry wants to share." Michael Cannon of the libertarian Cato Institute said comparative effectiveness research "isn't going to do any good because the industry will defund it as soon as it presents a threat." When the government's Agency for Health Research Quality suggested in 1995 that there were too many unnecessary back surgeries, doctors and industry groups attacked the conclusion. Mr. Cannon noted that Congress at the time slashed the agency's budget and stripped its authority to make medicare-payment recommendations. "They almost killed AHRQ," said Dr. Avorn. "The memory of their near-death experience hasn't been forgotten." Dr. McClellan, the former Medicare chief, said effectiveness research can be useful but shouldn't assume pricey medicines are automatically bad. "The goal isn't to avoid expensive drugs, it's to get more value for our health-care spending," he said. �Jacob Goldstein contributed to this article. Write to Alicia Mundy at alicia.mundy@wsj.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423024203966081.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.0855652:b0

(Sandy) The idea that those with money can have better or faster health services than those without money, just doesn't sell politically. Pffft! And it's our way of life here! no "extra billing" for doctors' fees, hospital ward fees, MRI's, x-rays, blood tests and the like. Like here. Providers take whatever the Medicare schedule will pay...and like it! It's why some doctors stop taking Medicare pts. But we have supplemental insurance here that will cover some but not always all of the difference. Medicaid will do that as well for the eligible. Thanks for your input, Sandy. :-)

In Italy you can pay to go to a private clinic, but over all they Health care system works. I am an American who has had free coverage in Italy. I was thrown from a spooked horse and broke 5 ribs. Hospital stay, x-rays and tests to make sure my lungs were not punctured all free. Here, I pay a fortune in health care for my family. :-( But Obama has said that he wanted the same Health care for Americans that the Congress has? That's the one I want. Has he given up on that or was it a lie?

Well, even if we get that type of insurance that Congress has, it's not happening overnight, or all at once. Or it shouldn't IMO. It needs to be platformed in. Look what a disaster it was to implement Medicare Pt D. Plus the fact there was just tooooo much information for many seniors to absorb, at least without help. They got through the kinks of Med D, but that was rough.

Hee. Fair and balanced..... Love the wrong date for the WSJ cite, too. Hee. Tue, Feb 10, 2009 2:36pm ET Fox passes off GOP press release as its own research -- typo and all Summary: In purporting to "take a look back" at how the economic recovery plan "grew, and grew, and grew," Fox News' Jon Scott referenced seven dates, as on-screen graphics cited various news sources from those time periods -- all of which came directly from a Senate Republican Communications Center press release. A Fox News on-screen graphic even reproduced a typo contained in the Republican press release. [cont......] http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100019

Interesting on what Evelyn posted this morning... The pertinent wording directly from the bill is included in the section that comes after what I pasted here, at the link. Not sure if it's not a matter of semantics, but why not just be wholly accurate. And that Kim chick. Honey, healthcare is already rationed, under HMO's. Tue, Feb 10, 2009 6:55am ET Limbaugh repeats health IT falsehood from Bloomberg "commentary" on House recovery bill Summary: Rush Limbaugh repeated a falsehood in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey that claimed that under a provision in the House-passed economic recovery bill, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the provisions McCaughey referenced address establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." [....] On the February 9 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh repeated McCaughey's falsehood, [....] On the conservative blog Wizbang, Kim Priestap also referenced the commentary in a February 9 post: Read all of Betsy's article and then pass it on to everyone you know. Rush has been all over this today to bring it to people's attention. Call your senators and representatives. Currently, phone calls to Capitol Hill are 100 to 1 against the bill. We need to do more. This is why Barack Obama is going all over the country scaring the American people into believing that our economy could collapse if the bill isn't passed. He wants this made into law before anyone knows that nationalized -- and rationed -- health care will be the result. If you have a loved one with a serious medical condition, this will be detrimental to his or her life. [Emphases in original.] By 10:40 p.m. ET, the Drudge Report linked to McCaughey's commentary using the headline " 'National Coordinator of Health Information Technology' Slipped in to Stimulus...": [cont...] http://mediamatters.org/items/200902100001?f=h_latest

I'm enjoying the comments thread for that item I posted above. http://mediamatters.org/discuss/200902100001

It's a shame, but as I said this morning, it's not just about fixing the healthcare system itself, people need to get with the program of being more responsible for themselves. And yes, providers as well. Not a new concept really, but it's become most imperative. Sobering results for cost-cutting Medicare project By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer 1 hr 39 mins ago, Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2009. � CHICAGO � An ambitious effort to cut costs and keep aging, sick Medicare patients out of the hospital mostly didn't work, a government-contracted study found. The disappointing results show how tough it is to manage older patients with chronic diseases, who often take multiple prescriptions, see many different doctors and sometimes get conflicting medical advice. The study showed just how hard it is to change the habits of older patients and their sometimes inflexible doctors. And it points up the challenges the Obama administration will face in trying to reform health care for an aging nation. [....] The only way you can really do it is by changing patients' behavior and by changing physicians' behavior, and both things are really hard to do," said study author Randall Brown, a researcher at Mathematica Policy Research Inc., in Princeton, N.J., which was hired to evaluate the programs. Often, these patients need to stop smoking, or lose weight, exercise more, eat healthier foods � a challenge even for generally healthy people. Those changes are especially tough for sick, older patients who often are set in their ways. "The same thing with physicians," Brown said. "A lot of them feel like they know how to take care of patients, so why do they need a nurse calling up and asking them why the patient isn't on some certain medication?" [cont....] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090210/ap_on_he_me/med_medicare_disappointment

(Dorine)Frankly, I think people over a certain income bracket, regardless of their age, shouldn't be eligible for Medicare They already pay a higher premium according to income. But abolish it.....Good luck! AARP is a v. big voting block. And I can just see Arlen Spector and Teddy Kennedy going for that one.

(Evelyn) They already pay a higher premium according to income. Please explain your meaning. I agree that trying to alter that coverage most likely wouldn't happen. AARP is very influential on many things, but then it turns out not always in their customers' best interest. There was some issue over their support of Med Part D IIRC and then this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/us/19insure.html I hate UnitedHealth Care. Thank God Cuomo has gone after them in NY. We get a number of patients who have AARP insurance for their supplemental insurance with Medicare as primary, but we don't take it for our services (though we take some United HealthCare policies). Actually I'm not sure if that's because that's not part of their coverage or we just don't take them for reimbursement because it doesn't pay anything. (If anyone's wondering, I'm a licensed Occupational Therapist who doesn't really practice anymore, currently works on the marketing side of a home health care company and at one time was a drug rep.)

(Evelyn) They already pay a higher premium according to income. Please explain your meaning Exactly what I said. Not everyone pays the same premium. After a certain amount that one reports to the IRS, one's premium is adjusted to that amount. I don't know what the income level is. I don't have time right now to look it up. Many lefties have the same view about Social Security as you and Karen have about Medicare. Cut it off if at retirement if you saved too much and have a high retirement income. Socialism??? Nah;-)

Here you go: Scale of Medicare premiums according to income. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10161.html#premium

((Sandy)By and large though, we are all in it together. Thanks for your input, Sandy. The sentiment above used to be characteristic of most Americans, too, I think, and there are still some of us who feel that way. Moon, I'm glad the Italians took care of you for zero spend. I have no idea what type of plan you have here, but I am guesstimating that it costs you upwards of $20,000 per year to cover your family. Thank God you can afford it. I went to in interesting presentation this morning on O's health care proposals in the stiumulus package and got some facts: --It is not a "single-payer" plan ala Canada or UK or most other places. I believe I predicted this months ago, because O did not campaign on a sginle payer model. --If you currently have group coverage (e.g., though your employer), you can keep it. --If you don't, you'd be able to buy into a national group plan that would look like the plan that Federal employees have. And they couldn't refuse you based on pre-existing conditions. Not sure what the premium-sharing structure would be, but it would be less expensive than trying to buy the coverage on your own. --Children would have to be covered, by law. Adults can go without, if they want to risk it. There's lots more, like what happens if you lose your job, but that's a real high level look.

Many lefties have the same view about Social Security as you and Karen have about Medicare. Having managed my mother's care (principally the financial end), I had first-hand knowledge of how Medicare was administered, including the Supplemental insurance. A lot of that has changed. When I said above a certain income level, I am talking about that top brackets. People who really don't need it. The vast number of retired people, who have saved all their lives and are living on SS and/or pension income aren't going have an annual income of over $213K (individual) or $426K (couples). Remember Warren Buffet saying that it was silly to extend Medicare to people like him? Perhaps people like (and there aren't many) refuse to use it, except as I recall insurance companies won't continue regular policies on those who qualify for Medicare.

From that link: Since 2007, higher income beneficiaries have been paying a larger percentage of their Part B premium based on income they reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In 2009, higher income beneficiaries will pay a monthly premium equal to 35, 50, 65 or 80 percent of the total cost, depending on what they reported to the IRS. However, the law affects less than 5 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, so most people will continue to pay the standard premium without an income-related adjustment. So, even the govt is saying that about 95% of all Medicare recipients are in the first bracket: Individuals with a MAGI of $85,000 or less Married couples with a MAGI of $170,000 or less

Adults can go without, if they want to risk it. Won't work unless everyone is required to join,as I understand from Health Gurus. I prefer Hill's plan with the above stipulation, which in the primaries O objected to. I don't know what the late,lamented Tom Daschle thought of this. Forgot to say that Paul Krugman, Dorine's honey, was on The Jim Lehrer Hour last night. ...criticizing poor Tim's plan. I say there was nothing there to critique.

(Dorine)Honey, healthcare is already rationed, under HMO's. Of course it is, and not just under HMOs. It's the managed care plans as well which reprlesent the lion's share of employer sponsored plans (where most of us are covered). And what youfound below is unconscionable. Look at how he twisted it. And now they are duping people into calling their Congressperson to vote no, which is against most people's self-interest. Rush Limbaugh repeated a falsehood in a Bloomberg "commentary" by Betsy McCaughey that claimed that under a provision in the House-passed economic recovery bill, "[o]ne new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and 'guide' your doctor's decisions." In fact, the provisions McCaughey referenced address establishing an electronic records system such that doctors would have information about their patients "to help guide medical decisions at the time and place of care." [....] On the February 9 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh repeated McCaughey's falsehood

(Evelyn)Won't work unless everyone is required to join Ha! It's the American way. "Don't force me to do anything." I'd imagine that the eventual goal is to cover everyone, and this is the first baby step. God knows if it will ever happen, but bless the people who are trying. They are doing God's work. I say "Down with the obstructionists." I wonder if Rush Limbaugh has to worry about health coverage.

LOL. Well, as the resident conservative (aka in some circles Obstructionist;-) I disagreee, but in the spirit of friendship ...I respect your opinion. That's the "American Way"....and moreover...my style:-)))))))

But, of course....:-((((( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

C'mon...Those wee ones need help. I don't mind my tax $$$$ to help children. evelyn *the (heartless) conservative*;-)

(Evelyn)(aka in some circles Obstructionist;-) LOL, I thought you were a centrist!:-) No, I would define obstructionist as members of Congress who: --Force enough compromises in the stimulus bill to make it too weak to succeed. --Then, having negotiated these compromises, won't even vote for it. --Which will allow them to run against the "collapsed Democratic economy" in 2010 and 2012.

(Evelyn) I don't mind my tax $$$$ to help children. Well, there's no choice now, but I do mind when they really shouldn't exist in the first place. Not like it was an "Oops!" occurrence.

Not like it was an "Oops!" occurrence. And frankly, in the 21st Century, there should lots less of these, too.

For you blog readers out there. You know who you are. ;-)) Obstructionists.....Truth in "advertising?" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/12/14848/9748/995/696661

Some interesting thoughts in this piece referencing the info that Rush L and friends were twisting about health information in that bill (the 4th paragraph in the shaded area at the link caught my eye): "These talking heads have been joined by drug companies (read: PhRMA) and makers of medical devices, who have activated their army of DC lobbyists, because these measures could lead to research that would prove some of PhRMA’s expensive drugs just don’t work much better than less expensive treatments. This is, in every sense of the phrase, a manufactured controversy. To make things more puzzling, both the House and Senate versions of the bill have almost equal amounts money in them for health IT and comparative effectiveness research. The right is, on the surface, trying to get provisions that the House and Senate agree on removed during the conference. That’s a pretty tough task. So, why go after a few small provisions in the recovery package that are already agreed on? And why go after health care in general, when there would seem to be far juicier targets? This is mostly a long game. In the short term, the right hopes to provide political cover, so Republicans and moderates can use these measures as excuses to vote against final passage of the bill. In the long term, though, this is laying the groundwork for the larger health care fight. [....] It’s important to recognize this as the opening salvo against health care reform." [...] http://www.theseminal.com/2009/02/11/the-conservative-lobbyist-shell-game/

(Mari)Then, having negotiated these compromises, won't even vote for it. Hey, you've got Snow, Collins and Specter...what else do you want?;-) 'sides, they just might be following their constituents' wishes. Something which Spector's didn't get. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_611273.html

(Mari), --If you don't, you'd be able to buy into a national group plan that would look like the plan that Federal employees have. And they couldn't refuse you based on pre-existing conditions. Not sure what the premium-sharing structure would be, but it would be less expensive than trying to buy the coverage on your own. --Children would have to be covered, by law. Adults can go without, if they want to risk it. This would be for me. Are teenagers not included? Only children? Even the Universities require health coverage for their students. Something needs to be done, asap. The political game has to be abandoned for the good of the people. A cut I would suggest: sell Amtrack to the private sector.

I would guess children would include up to 18. Isn't that legal adulthood?

Tsk, tsk, O..... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/opinion/11wed2.html?_r=1

(Evelyn)'sides, they just might be following their constituents' wishes. Something which Spector's didn't get. So, based on one letter to a newspaper, you are able to conclude that one letter is representative of Spector's constituents!? Evelyn, Obama won PA by 11 percentage points. Those are people Spector has pledged to represent in the Senate, not just those who voted Republican, and not just those who organize phone and letter writing campaigns that purport to represent "the people of PA." The voters sent their message in November; I'd say Spector knows exactly what he's doing. why did you even give your word while so many Pennsylvanians voiced their opposition that your Washington, D.C., phone line was constantly busy? *If* the line was busy, how does this letter writer know that the calls weren't in favor of the bill? Is she bugging his phone?;-) It sanctions religious discrimination Huh? and establishes controversial health care provisions that will lead to more government control over health care decisions and less control by doctors and individuals. Just as I thought; like a sheep this letter writer heeded the clarion call from Limbaugh, based on the above lies he's spreading, which have been debunked here.

Those are people Spector has pledged to represent in the Senate, not just those who voted Republican Moreoever, Spector was not up for reelection this past November. Therefore, he can't claim any sort of mandate from his state's voters. His constituents haven't had a chance to "throw the bum out" yet. ;-)

Moreoever, Spector was not up for reelection this past November. Not sure of your point. He represents PA in the Senate regardless of when he was re-elected or when he faces re-election. And PA went heavily for Obama. O needs to keep his case in front of the American people. He's the best ammunition he has. Depending on what poll you look at his handling of the economy has the support of upwards of 2/3 of the public. They may not be the people who make noise, or listen to talk radio, or read the Drudge Report, but they voted, and they trust him. Of course, no prez's numbers stay high forever. He needs to strike while the iron is hot.

(Karen) Moreoever, Spector was not up for reelection this past November. I'd think more that he's positioning himself for reelection in 2010, esp if polling shows PA residents are highly in favor of this bill (no matter their party).

(Mari) Not sure of your point. He represents PA in the Senate regardless of when he was re-elected I was reinforcing your argument about PA's vote in the last election. He can't claim to be representing the people since they haven't voted for him (and his positions) since 2004. I particularly liked O's comment in his television appearance, when he reminded Congress that their games are affecting their constituencies. One of the pundits challenged the R-bloc to turn down any stimulus money in their districts/states. See how long those guys stay in office. ;-)

(Dorine) I'd think more that he's positioning himself for reelection in 2010 Absolutely.

I am so sad and in shock about the crashing of Flight 3407. This happened close to home as I live about 10 miles from the Buffalo Niagara International Airport. The local news has been covering this story all night and I pray that those surviving families find the courage to get through this catastrophe. One of the women on that plane was coming to visit her sister here in Buffalo and her husband died on 9/11. I can't even imagine what she is going through having lost both her brother-in-law and her own sister to plane crashes.

Hee, hee...I knew that letter would get a rise out of 'youse'. Ooops...gotta go run and listen to Rush;-D

A little bit of history on Betsy McCaughey, the one who mischaracterized the IT health information bit: During the middle of the Clinton health care reform, she published an article in The New Republic claiming to have closely read the legislation and finding therein alarming clauses that would prevent you from going outside the plan for care, and forbidding individuals to pay the doctor they wanted. It was all based on nonsense, easily refuted by reading Section 3 of the legislation, which said, �Nothing in this Act shall be construed as prohibiting the following: (1) An individual from purchasing any health care services.� But her article and her similar fictitious follow-up (for which The New Republic ultimately apologized) made her a conservative star in the fight against health care reform. Sure enough, she was soon tapped to join the NY ticket as Lt. Governor to George Pataki, who beat Mario Cuomo to become the first Republican Governor of New York since the 70s. There, her rise to the top became� weird, and somewhat disturbing. There was the Medicaid reform portfolio that never really went anywhere. Th re was the fight with the Speaker of the Assembly� in the lobby. There was the �What the holy heck is going on here?� State of the State address where she, from her raised platform behind Gov. Pataki, stood up� for the entire speech. (Cue crazy, tinkly piano music). Suffice to say, Pataki dropped her from the ticket, and she ran against him first as a Democrat and then on the Liberal party line. Now, she�s a staffer at a conservative think tank and, with the race for a Republican challenger to the New York Governor in 2010 wide open, she�s suddenly back in the spotlight. The script looks identical � do a �close reading� of health care legislation that sounds scary but turns out to be entirely fraudulent, get hailed by the noise machine, and parlay that exposure to� to� to be continued, I guess. Hey, it worked last time! http://healthcare.change.org/blog/view/betsy_mccaugheys_scary_stories_about_health_care_what_needs_to_be_done

Well, Specter may be out on his butt come Nov 2010 anyway.... http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09042/948258-84.stm U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter's vote for the Senate stimulus bill is stimulating long-festering Republican opposition to his re-election. Mr. Specter, whose term expires next year, was one of three GOP senators who voted for the Senate version of the economic recovery measure. The vote prompted Meakem, the CEO of the former Internet firm FreeMarkets, to declare his determination to play a still unspecified role in ousting the veteran Republican in the 2010 GOP primary. "There will be a Republican primary fight for Specter's Senate seat in 2010," the entrepreneur and conservative talk show host said in a statement, "and I am going to be actively involved in electing someone who will do what's right for Pennsylvania taxpayers, not the Washington lobbyists." For more about Specter and PA politics analysis, with poll numbers... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/13/121744/042/598/697066

This sentence beggers belief! A truck driver used a laptop whilst driving and subsequently ramming into the back of a car, killing all 6 occupants. He was sentenced of the lesser charge,'careless driving' rather than 'dangerous driving'. Sentence to only 3 years in prison. I am speechless. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/7888653.stm

I know someone who's from B'ham area with a similar last name as that family (one letter off, though has relatives with the last name that spelling). Hope they weren't related somehow. A funny tribute by Hall and Oates on The Daily Show back in Dec when Alan Colmes was leaving Hannity and Colmes on Fox. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213369&title=Hall-&-Oates-Pay-Tribute-to-Alan-Colmes&byDate=true Apparently someone in Australia tracked down the name and My Space profile of that Australian arson suspect in custody and several (basically hate) groups have been started on Facebook to vent, protest hiding his identity, etc. There's a story in the press there that the people who post things like his pic and address could be in trouble. People are protesting that his name shouldn't be hidden as murderers/rapists, etc are identified there already, and the judge has pretty much agreed, esp as it's already out there and isn't practical at this point to try to suppress his name.

(Sue) He was sentenced of the lesser charge,'careless driving' rather than 'dangerous driving'. Sentence to only 3 years in prison. I am speechless. I can't seem to find anything that gives me a clear understanding of the difference between careless and dangerous, except the maximum sentence and that careless only recently became a charge that brought you before the courts. (Dorine) A funny tribute by Hall and Oates on The Daily Show back in Dec when Alan Colmes was leaving Hannity and Colmes on Fox. Yeah, I saw that when it aired. There have been a couple of great segments on both Hannity and Rush lately, including one where all these Republican congressmen backpedal on Rush's significance to the party. I'd look for it, but I know the one person who says Rush isn't relevant won't click on it anyway. So why bother. ;-)