On topic: I think that only JE of the 3 D leaders must do well in IA.

bsimon: zouk argues only with strawmen, not real people. It's much easier for him to win that way.

Good job in trying to explain things in the real world to him, anyway.

"the 10 M children in SChips comes partially out of private health care - that is the whole debate - or did you miss that?"

That is a Bush admin talking point, which is disputed by 'liberals' like Orrin Hatch.

Nonetheless, if your entire argument is that the current system is working so smashingly well that it doesn't require changes, I doubt your preferred candidate(s) will have much success in the future. Please recall your original argument was against 'socialized medicine' which no credible candidate for President is proposing. Here's a tip: you might have more success in the future if you debate with facts rather than fantasy. Ta

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070718153509.aspx

Try this for some additional views on the "47 million".

"Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who aren't American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but haven't signed up.
Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million - a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.

I am way too tired of providing stats to fantasy-land Libs. I have provided these exact numbers many times. It is settled, as they say.

the 10 M children in SChips comes partially out of private health care - that is the whole debate - or did you miss that?

besides, the actual number is irrelevant and is just a Lib talking point - make up a really big number (of kids) that we can never agree on and can never be demonstrated properly and then vilify anyone who refuses to cover these poor misfits.

that is why I started this conversation with the idea of rationing - the end result is that we will have to decide, as a society, what level of rationing we will accept. do we let old people die? how about hopelessly sick people? how about poor people? do we administer every test known to man every time? who decides? who pays?

this idea that I go to the Dr and get every test and someone else pays for a sniffle has got to go. there are decisions to be made and the underlying feature is that every and all possible health precautions/cures are not affordable.

Dems want to create waiting lines, limit drug lists, lower Dr quality, eliminate or penalize research, fix costs and manage the whole process from the top.

I find this anti-liberty. I want to make my own choices, pay my own bills, pick my own doctor from a big list, choose the drugs I take from a big list, pay what I decide to pay, have access to all the latest drugs and procedures, make the deciions in my doctors office, not in DC.

but as you can tell, I am not a government loving Lib.

gotta go see the Police tonight. fundraising season. Van Halen was magnificent last thursday.

try to make sense, Libs and stay on point. All your insults only serve to demonstarte that you are incapable of winning a debate.

"No - that 47M includes those who haven't bothered to fill out forms, illegal aliens, those between jobs who will have insurance soon, those who choose not to get it, etc,. by the time you eliminate all these exceptions, there are really only about 10 M who do not have insurance and are not expecting to get it."

Forgive me, but I must ask for proof of your assertion. Frankly, I don't trust you. Given that the expansion of S-CHIP is supposed to cover 10 million kids that are currently uninsured, I hardly believe your claim that there are 10 million total Americans without health insurance.

(also note: the SCHIP number is where I got my 10 million, above, which implies there are actually more than 10 million uninsured American children - but only 10 million are eligible for coverage under the vetoed SCHIP changes)

bsimon, here are some statistics from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/200406_01.pdf

In 2003, 20% of the population 18-64 had no insurance. 11% had public coverage, and 70% had private coverage.

Blarg, Loud and dumb - it seems Mike b was correct about you.

"As long as the staple of Lib arguments is that profit is evil, you will never win the debate."

another classic bit of strawman idiocy from zouk. That would explain why Democrats get $millions in donations from Wall Street every election cycle. We all know that Wall Street has no interest in profit.

No - that 47M includes those who haven't bothered to fill out forms, illegal aliens, those between jobs who will have insurance soon, those who choose not to get it, etc,. by the time you eliminate all these exceptions, there are really only about 10 M who do not have insurance and are not expecting to get it. this is not the same as not having health care (vs insurance).

So is a massive government entity (we all know how reliable and efficient thay are) appropriate to cure a 3% "shortcoming" in a otherwise very successful program? I guess if you are a Lib you need to take any opening you can get. this one is not big enough to drive Hillary-care through.

"Perhaps you're confusing uninsured children (10 million) with uninsured Americans (47 million)."

bsimon: That would hardly be the first moment of confusion for poor zouk.

Also from my reference: "About 25 men out of 100,000 are dying from prostate cancer every year in both the U.K. and the U.S." The death rates are practically identical. The 5-year survival rates aren't, but as you yourself admit, they aren't a good measure of the system's quality.

Do you support Medicare and Medicaid, or do you believe they should be abolished? After all, they're government-run healthcare. That's socialism!

"No thinking person wants to ruin a system that covers and handles all but 10 million out of a population of over 300 million."

that 10 should be a 47.

Perhaps you're confusing uninsured children (10 million) with uninsured Americans (47 million).

Of the remainder, doesn't Medicare already cover nearly 50% of the population? I ask because I don't know. If that's true, private insurance only covers 35% of Americans. Who's got the stats?

MikeB - i don't know enough about the system in Scandanavia to question your claims. But I do know that thier taxes are significantly higher across the board, that they don't have the culture of lawsuits that we have, and that their diet is far away more healthy than ours. so you can't simply transplant that system over here and expect identical results. not that they might have good ideas to steal. but they also don't have the advanced research that we have and to our extent. I am not prepared to give this up.

all the corporate bashing dene by Dems is very counter-productive. Oil companies are not evil - they provide an essential service at a fair price in a very efficient manner. Same with pharm, DoD and almost all others. As long as the staple of Lib arguments is that profit is evil, you will never win the debate.

Let's push the Dems away from supporting illegal aliens and towards fight for the American working man and woman. Go to
http://numbersusa.com/index for non-partisan, anti-racist, pro-working people activism.

The latest official figures for five-year "survivability" rates for men diagnosed with prostate cancer are around 98 per cent in the United States and 74 per cent in England.

From your own reference.

"Practically identical"??? Are you serious? I bet those 24% who die don't think it is identical.

I already stated that survival rates for prostrate is a poor measure. you can bicker about calling it socialized all you want. the name sticks. No thinking person wants to ruin a system that covers and handles all but 10 million out of a population of over 300 million. it is not perfect and never will be. but why kill it for everyone to please the tormented leftists.

KOZ - Ignore Loudmouth. She/she/it isn't interested in any answer you might provide...just too dumb to debate with anyways.

As ofr socialized medicine, truly socialized medicine, my family and I lived in Sweden (93 - 98) and i was wonderful. The health care was single payer, single source. Where you get into trouble is with dual public-private systems as they have in Canada and England. There, any private doctor can make three to four times more oney working for a private health car provider and they do.

As for medical triage, it is more commonly practiced here under HMO's. It is all too common to see insurance companies deny care for cancer, blood diseases, perscription drugs, life saving surgery and treatments. They often will do so under the guise that a procedure is "experimental". Sometimes, and I work auditing health care claims, clerks are told to automatically deny claims over a certain dollar amount. They will do this time and again, until the patient goes to court, or publicity finally forces them to. Medical insurance, especially HMO's, are the most cutthroat business you can imagine. True Socialized Medicine would (*does*, where it is in place) a much better job of providing quality care.

But, there's more! The U.S. spend four times more money on health care over countries with single source coverage. You can run the stats for Sweden, Norway and Denmark, and the thing that strikes me is that we could have the same health care system that they have for *LESS* than the $110 billion dollar subsidy Hillary proposes to give her health industry contributers. For less than $200 billion we could provide medical and dental care, prescription drugs, for every man, woman and child in this country and we could do away with Medicare, Medicade, *all* private health insurance companies and expendatures. The savings would be enormous and would relieve business and government from providing this essential service to their employees. We simply cannot cotninue to shovel oxcars full of money to health industry executives and the maggots that "invest" in those companies, living off the misery of people.

'Fact - socilaized medicine uses rationing to hold costs down. you must wait to see a doctor, the doctor may be trained in India and the list of treatments and drugs will be limited. all these things hold costs down.'

Fact: that's why HMOs use the same tactics here--because their interest in keeping costs down is even greater than a government because they MUST make a profit. When I need a mammogram, I generally have to wait 6 months for an appointment. And I have a history of cancer. Generally, it takes two months or so to get an appointment with any of the specialists I must see. The doctor could be trained anywhere, and often is. My pharmaceutical plan with pay for selected drugs, but not others.

There's a reason why Rudy is using [old and debunked] British numbers -- theirs are worse than anyone else's in Europe. Several Western European countrie with socialized medicine have higher surivival rates than we do.

And as everyone has pointed out -- not a single Democrat has proposed 'socialized' medicine. All of them are using existing free market healthcare companies.

"Fact - socilaized medicine uses rationing to hold costs down. you must wait to see a doctor, the doctor may be trained in India and the list of treatments and drugs will be limited."

Not that anyone has proposed "socialized medicine," but your description differs from the current US healthcare system exactly how?

We'll wait for your "fact-based" answer.

"Fact - socilaized medicine uses rationing to hold costs down."

Relevancy? When someone starts promoting socialized medicine the above alleged fact might be worth noting. In the meantime, no Dem frontrunner is proposing 'socialized medicine'.

The chart of 5-year death rates is here:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/10/rudy_miscalculates_cancer_surv.html
Data in the chart is from the National Cancer Institute. Average US and UK rates are practically identical, though minorities in the US have significantly higher death rates. And death rates are the only legitimate way to compare the quality of cancer treatment.

Do you think we don't have rationing in our healthcare system? Our rationing is just based on personal wealth, and how good your employer's healthcare plan is. If you can't afford to go to the doctor, it doesn't matter how good the doctor is; it won't help you.

I guess you're not interested in having a logic and fact based debate. did you even read the article which provides sourced numbers. Or do you prefer to maintain your "feelings" based database.

as long as you Libs refuse to confront the facts, you will continue to lose Presidential elections.

Fact - socilaized medicine uses rationing to hold costs down. you must wait to see a doctor, the doctor may be trained in India and the list of treatments and drugs will be limited. all these things hold costs down. they also hold quality down. as a determined Lib, I would expect you to not understand the market or cost of things, but nevertheless, these are facts you simply can't avoid.

If you want to be convincing, you will have to deal with them and not by using your personal private facts.

If MikeB is accurate, I suppose this will be the end of your protestations.

5-year survival rates are meaningless, because they're based on when the disease is diagnosed. Death rates for prostate cancer are about the same in Britain and the US. As long as you're white, that is. Death rates for blacks in the US are more than twice those of whites. I guess that's more evidence that our healthcare system is the best in the world.

BLARG, LOUDMOUTH - no facts? Like last wqeek when you challenged the numbers on illegals and I went out and cited numerous sources. The fact is, right after playing your immature games with me, you went after KOZ. You two are a couple of dumb twits, intellectual lightweights, that take up valuable space on forums like this. You NEVER contribute anything of worth. All you seem to do is toss insults, get together with other loosers and gang up, and otherwise demonstrate what total weasels you are.

According to Giuliani, 18 percent of American men diagnosed with prostate cancer will die from the disease, while 56 percent of British men will. And Rudy blames that on the rationing inherent in the British model of health care. Those numbers are accurate. They come from official data released by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, by way of a study by the liberal Commonwealth Fund, not -- as critics darkly hint -- from a right-wing think tank (although Rudy apparently saw them in an article by Manhattan Institute scholar David Gratzer).

It is fair to note, however, that the numbers are somewhat dated. More recent information shows an improved British performance. The five-year survival rate for prostate cancer in the U.K. is 74 percent. Of course, it is 98 percent in the U.S.

dated information - not lies, not inaccurate. the point stands. Read the article. It is a fair point. socialized medicine rations. If you find this acceptable, great, but don't pretend it is not true.

Zouk, do you admit that Rudy was completely wrong about cancer survival rates in Britain vs. the US? Or are you just going to say that his "point" was correct even if the data backing it was made up?

"Beyond the debate over numerical minutiae,"

Translation: My guy was wrong, but if we make it seem like trivia, maybe it will blow over.

No, it's not *anyone*, it's just you. Because you make wild claims and then can't find facts that support them. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose Hillary Clinton, based on things she's actually said and done. Stick to the facts and you won't look so foolish.

Beyond the debate over numerical minutiae, the basic fact is that Britain's system of socialized medicine is bad for your health. As of this writing, as many as 750,000 Britons are waiting to be admitted to NHS hospitals. Cancer patients can wait as long as eight months for treatment. Delays in receiving treatment are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered. About 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncologist.

No one pretends that the U.S. health-care system is perfect. There are serious problems. Costs are rising. There are too many people without insurance. Quality is uneven. The system needs reform.

But turning our health care over to the government, as Democrats like Hillary Clinton wants to do, could come at a very high price, not just in higher taxes and reduced choices -- in lives. That was Rudy's point, and he was right.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzIzNGM5ZGU0M2QwZDlhNWQ1NzYzYTQ1MmU4MDBlNzA=&w=MQ==

According to a study published this year in the British medical journal The Lancet, for survival rates in all types of cancers, the U.S. ranks number one among industrialized nations: 62.9 percent of women with cancer survive for five years, and 66.3 percent of men. Britain ranked 16th for women (52.7 percent for five years) and 15th for men (just 44.8 percent).

project much, mibrooks? The only one throwing temper tantrums is you. Dial it back, dude.

BLARG, LOUDMOUTH - I don't know why I even bother. Any time you ask *anyone* for "facts", it is a complete waste of their time. After they look them up and check them and post them, you idiots always blow them off, ridicule, toss insults, and gernally throw a tantrum like the immature brats you both are. I'm a slow learner, but I'm am simply sick of your broadcasting your ignorance, your silly games, and your daily touting you ignorance and stupidity. Get a life...better yet, do us all a favor and grow up.

"I havent heard much about the kurd situation lately, are the turks still shelling the pkk positions right now?"

I don't know. The latest I've heard is that Turkey is unswayed by Sec Rice's efforts to persuade them not to invade.

Since the turn of the century, only four Democrats have gotten more than 50 percent of the vote in presidential races. It may not even be that many. The idea that this is a Democrat-owned country or a majority-Democrat country simply isn't true. ... This is why so many of us here lament the lack of genuine leadership on our side. People do respond to leadership. Leadership is bold; leadership is confidence; leadership is not being defensive about things. People will respond to it; it can be done."

Americans will reject Hillary if the Republicans show some of that leadership, some of that spine

Unlike Romney, and unlike Rudy Giuliani, Clinton hasn't run anything successfully. This fact -- that her chief experience is simply in being a Clinton -- may be why the American people ultimately choose a Romney or Giuliani as their president, not the seemingly inevitable Clinton.

The junior senator from New York gave Romney and his fellow candidates a clear opening to continue this line of attack when she faltered by trying to win over her base and the general electorate at the same time while answering a question during a debate in Philadelphia. When asked about New York State giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, she wound up both opposing it and supporting it. Then she asked: "What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem."

Well, Hillary, if you had ever run anything, maybe you would know. Maybe you'd have a better answer. If you had any executive experience, you could speak with some authority.

the intern returns. Let's hope not.

KJ Lopez

Blarg: Admit it, you and everyone else around here wants to know about mibrooks's experiences with women. Couldn't be good.

PS to mibrooks: Where is "Wesley"?

That's your evidence? Hillary is a Nazi because she doesn't want men to control women's health? Do you want women to control your health? No? Then you're a Nazi too!

Every president has been male. Every presidential candidate, with a few very minor exceptions, has been male. It's legitimate to call the presidency a boy's club. Have you ever remarked on the presence of women in a location or profession? Then you, sir, are worse than Hitler!

Would you describe yourself as a woman-hating radical (radial?) anti-feminist? Because the things you've said about women are far worse than the things you cite Hillary saying about men.

"Hillary CLinton, make no mistake about it, is man hating radial feminist."

But is she "steel-belted" enough to withstand the harsh criticism from her opponents?

Just thought I would share this information for anyone who wants to support Obama without going broke. I bought a bunch of stuff from http://www.obamacampus.com for a rally that we had at my school and I just wanted to recommend it because it's inexspensive, fast and I know people don't have a lot of money to spend on bumper stickers and T shirts. I think we should be able to support Obama without going broke!

Blarg, let' see. She commonly refers to the Presidency as the "All Boys Club", every single speach she gives has something like to never allow men to "again play politics with women's health and women's lives" (Wesley speach last week), and there is a truly frightening video on UTube where Ms. Clnton describes how to deal with "bad men". Her constant "zings" about Bill are well known and she has been trading on the female public view of his infidelities. A lot of this is summarized by a supporter: "I love [Hillary Clinton] so completely that, honestly, she would have to burn down the White House before I would say anything bad about her!" and "Every attack on Hillary Clinton for not knowing her place is an attack on you." - Nora Ephron.

Hillary CLinton, make no mistake about it, is man hating radial feminist. That pretty much sums up her whoole campaign to date.

blarg-actually i did, right in the middle of it it made a interesting point about biden and dodd(btw they both came in spongbob costumes) they both cancel each other out. where thats true or not that remains to be seen.

after that, i changed the channel to catch the end of the boston college game. hmm who to watch? Brian Willams trying to be funny and some no name performer i never heard of or a college football?

jaymills, there is an unemotional feature story about the "second coup" at

http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10088419

Biden supposedly spoke with Musharraf this morning [in JB's capacity as Chair of the SFRC].

I am far more hopeful for the long term future of Pakistan as a nation of laws than I am for most Moslem Asian nations save Turkey, Indonesia, and maybe Bangladesh. But the short run looks very gloomy and our role looks uncertain, to me.

When I see that the first targets of martial law are judges, lawyers, and journalists who are committed to Brit style democracy, I cannot accept Musharraf's explanations that he is cracking down on terrorism and assuring the protection of the Constitution at face value.

bsimon-i really do hope so. a nuclear weapon in god knows who's hands right now is a scary thought. Musharraf may be looking at the end of his reign right now and the war on terror is effectively over.

I havent heard much about the kurd situation lately, are the turks still shelling the pkk positions right now?

Jay, I assumed that you'd watched the skit, so I was making a joke referring to it. Hillary claimed that she was dressed like a bride, but everyone complimented her witch costume. At the end, Obama said she was a beautiful bride, and Bill shouted "She's a witch!" Bill was dressed as someone from an MTV show about picking up women; I didn't get the reference.

Anyway, I don't think goldenspiral was talking about SNL. He referred to a speech, not a skit, and his description wasn't anything like the skit.

jaymills writes
"blarg-um you sure? i thought it was a witch costume! anyways what the hell was bill? a pimp?"

I didn't see it; the review I read called it a bride's dress - but said the other characters (including bill) kept callling her a witch. Bill was apparently supposed to be some character from a VH1 show who is a bit of a philanderer.

The same article had a claim that the Clinton campaign suggested she host the show for the season opener, then changed the plan. Its not yet clear if she will host a future episode.

jaymills asks
"what do you make of the recent devlopments in pakistan right now?"

Its an effing mess. Take the unrest on the Iraq-Turkey border with the unrest in Pakistan, add a dose of unclarity on Iran and you have enormous potential for utter chaos in the middle east.

I hope the pentagon has a plan in place for monitoring who has control of the pakistani nukes; hopefully we've been able to get some info from Musharraf on their locations & readiness in exchange for helping prop up his administration.

' Clinton's wholes series of speechs riddled with comments bashing men, bashing her husbands, and holding out the promise of revenge against males in general. '

Her' husbands'? MikeB, that is the single strangest thing you have said so far. You must be listening to speechs only you can hear -- because I have never heard anything about 'revenge against males'

You are actually saying that she thinks men should be sent to gas chambers?

blarg-um you sure? i thought it was a witch costume! anyways what the hell was bill? a pimp? i guess the writers strike must have started around 11:35 pm and it stopped being funny.

'turning to the GOP for a second, does anyone know if Rudy G. has changed his tune on US vs. GB cancer survival rates?'

Naw- that's not his style. Like GWB, he's never wrong.

Although I read somewhere that his source debunked them.

Jay: She wasn't a witch, she was a bride!

MikeB, please give some examples of these Nazi-like quotes from Hillary.

goldenspiral-um your probably thinking of saturday night live where he wore a obama mask.

while that skecth was funny, i didnt think it was racist at all. then again you would probably think hillary dressing up as a witch wasnt funny either.

mark if your still around what do you make of the recent devlopments in pakistan right now?

goldenspiral - And, of course, you aren't in the least bit troubl;ed by Clinton's wholes series of speechs riddled with comments bashing men, bashing her husbands, and holding out the promise of revenge against males in general. Look, Hillary Clinton is nothing more than a feminist verion of a Nazi. All you have to do is substitute men for Jews and you've got it! And, you're offended by Obama's appearance of Saturday night live?

Iowa will certainly be a "squeaker", but I believe Hillary will take it. John Edwards has now crossed the barrier into negativity and it is not pleasant to see, no matter who you support. He has a lot working against him right now, so he is foolish to be adding to that.

Is the Obama speech to which you refer the one where he does a really insulting Minstrel Show impersonation? All that was missing was the "white face". Been looking for the film clip. Wouldn't you call that playing the "race card"? I would

chris, If Obama gives the speech at that dinner that he gave in Spartanburg, SC over the weekend, people will be on their feet.
It is as, if not more, powerful than the 04 speech.
he builds up to an incredible ending.
anyone who wants to see it, here is the link.
I would urge Chris to take a peek as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAkGr_Rrdn0&eurl=http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/ObamaHQ/

I, for one, am excited to see whether the trends change in Iowa over the next couple weeks. Have the challengers established a beachhead in their campaign to knock Sen Clinton out of front-runner status? I certainly hope so.

This is an important week after Hillary finally showed some vulnerability at last week's debate. None of the Dems have it in them to really blitz her.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

turning to the GOP for a second, does anyone know if Rudy G. has changed his tune on US vs. GB cancer survival rates?

Texsen08,tThat is interesting about how many ads have been run already in Iowa. The most interesting is Obama's totals. That is alot of time and money with very little return for Obama.

I really think Obama should have focused on NH instead of Iowa. I think he sells alot better up there with his progressive stances on the war and politics as usual.

That's a really terrific ad for Edwards.

I had not realized that Obama and Clinton (and Richardson and Biden, too) have run SO MANY ads in Iowa while Edwards has been biding his time and saving his TV campaign for a time when the Iowan audience was ready for to pay closer attention to the candidates' messages.

Here's some info on the rate at which the other candidates have been burning up their ad dollars while Edwards has been keeping his powder dry:

http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/nielsen-2008-presidential-campaign-tv-radio-spots-democrats.jpg