A Message to Republicans Who Voted Against the Children's Health Bill

My name is Paul Simon.

I earn my living by writing and singing songs. It's a very old and low-tech profession that feels increasingly age-appropriate. I am honored to have the opportunity to express my opinions concerning SCHIP.

I am the father of four healthy children, knock on wood, but if they get sick or need medical attention I don't knock on wood; I take them to a doctor whose care and attention I am, fortunately, able to afford. Millions of American children do not receive the same medical care. They are uninsured.

Twenty years ago, I co-founded The Children's Health Fund with Dr. Irwin Redlener. Our organization provides mobile medical units with doctors and staff to serve the pediatric needs of poor communities across the United States. In the twenty years since we began, we have grown incrementally, but as of last year we had recorded over 1.2 million doctor/patient visits.

In 1992, Hurricane Andrew devastated a large portion of Southern Florida. Our medical units were there to help. When Hurricane Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast with an almost Biblical force, The Children's Health Fund had units working in those communities within a week. There was very little outside help -- no FEMA, no Red Cross.

But there were scores of mini-vans and trailers loaded with food and supplies from hundreds of churches around the country. I watched with wonder and admiration as the church people opened their hearts and got to work helping people on the Gulf Coast whose lives has been destroyed. They did not debate whether they could find a compromise or alternative way of helping. They opened their hearts and started to repair a dire emergency.

The president's veto of the re-authorization of SCHIP was a heartless act.

Thanks to groups like Families USA and the Children's Health Fund, Congress is getting closer and closer to overriding the President's veto -- and children of hard working American families are getting closer to receiving affordable health care through SCHIP.

I am asking those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens -- our children. I am asking you to change your vote. If you do, I believe it will be one of the proudest days of your life.

Thank you,

Paul Simon

To learn more about this issue and to take action, please visit www.familiesusa.org

Comments

[iluvsam]

Good. Now let's get this same message in a 30 second spot on T.V. Let their constituents know who these jackasses are who won't change their vote.

[Jjc2006]

Thank you for your efforts Mr. Simon.

Yesterday I e-mailed the two congressman in my state who voted against extending/improving SCHIP (no surprise both are neocon republican) and pleaded with them to reconsider.

However, I doubt it will do. These two love to claim connections to God and are adamantly "pro life", except of course when that life is outside the womb so I refer to them as pro birth candidates. How can people claim to be Christians and then do this to the "least of us".

[DaisyZimmerly]

I'm more Republican than anyone else. I know my money is my money and should not be confiscated by taxes and used to save dying children. This is just Liberal redistribution of wealth. I'm voting for Ron Paul and getting rid of all this Socialist crap.

[1stsgtbill]

You sure you are not Ann Coultier

[crossja]

Pretty sure Ron Paul is a sort of anti-Ann Coulter. The discrepencies are many.

[wilty]

No, Daisy here, makes Ann Coulter look as if she were a 'Compassionate Conservati­ve."

Ms. Zimmerly, I do hope that when you retire, if you have not done so, already, that you will so kindly refuse that "Socialist Crap" Social Security Income, each month, for the rest of your miserably, wrethched life.

[maddogbitesback]

Daisy - your tax dollars flew the president from his relaxing time on his ranch at Crawford to save a woman who was legally dead and had been for many many years. A lot of dying children could have been helped with the money spent in the courts and in government on a outrageous attempt to appease so called Christians. They are the ones who pay good money to threaten abortion clinics but don't care for about the child after it is born. They are the ones who constantly pour out cash in the endless attempt to stop homosexuals from doing what homosexuals do in private and at nobody's expence. A dying kid - why not just bomb them or shoot them like the government of America does with Iraqi children.

[DSPS]

Fine, Daisy. You wanna take care of yourself, totally, and no one else. Then surely you'll sign wavers saying that you yourself want to pay for street repairs and lighting in your neighborhood. You won't use the public water supply nor police nor courts nor the fire department -- and certainly not the emergency room. Hope you never need help.

[crossja]

Things that are shared have to be publically funded. But these expenses are few.

If the goverment would leave our purse strings alone, and health care, for that matter, basic health care would be more affordable.

[AlphaDoc]

An interesting turnabout. This is the first time I've ever heard of a daisy spreading fertilizer.
As to those who supported the veto reexamining their consciences, I doubt they could find them with both hands and a flashlight, though they'd certainly be looking in the right area.
Go get 'em, Paul.

[Veleria29]

Let us pray that misfortune never knocks on your door and leaves you broke with a sick child and miserably poor. If your attitude is the same as all republicans who would rather see a child die because he does not have insurance then you will be in deep dodo. Except for the grace of God you could be walking in the shoes of one of these working poor with a sick child and NO INSURANCE. I would prefer my tax money be used to save the lives of our children than used to kill the innocent victums in Iraq pof which many are women and children.

[crossja]

I would prefer that more of your tax money stayed in your wallet, so health care would be more affordable for you.

[oldbutstillthekidd]

Here is some math for those who just can't figure it out.

I pay $456.00 every 2 weeks for medical, dental and vision care, in comparison I pay $417.00 every 2 weeks in federal and state taxes. This does not include SS, Life, or workers comp. insurance.

Explain to me how the USA is run on that amount but heath care for myself and my wife can't. I would gladly give the total amount for my health insurance to the government to assure every person in the US was healthy.

You people talk about a free market. With everything imaiganeable being subsidised. Do you see the conflict? When my doctor prescibses medication it must first be approved by a bean counter. One who is so intune with medicine that they work behind a computer and see no people that are sick or ill. What they know is staticits that they themselves generate and in no way are represenative of the population, since they only deal with those with a job, never anyone terminaly ill.

Insurance was born from organized crime. It has been enabled by our government and lazy ignornat people. There is a time and a place for evrything. However health is not something you should bet on, even though we pratice it here in the once great United States of America.

This is not the country where I was raised. If I were to travel abroad I would claim to be from Canada.

[crossja]

Part of the reason, there are admittedly others, we as a nation struggle to afford propper health care is because our goverment has been taxing us to death for years. If any sort of goverment subsidized health care is to come about, then taxes must increase. And if that is the case, we are looking at middle class Americans taking home half of their wages.

To enable socialism is, by definition, to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. And under an increasingly socialistic system, most Americans will not be able to rise into the better camp.

[newpantaloons]

Really?? But a trillion dollars for the Iraq War is OK?? You people just kill me. You're so ridiculous and "relevant"! Just like our dear George the Incompetant.

[maddogbitesback]

Crossja; I hate to tell you you are wrong but you are. Before you talk about anything you should check the facts. And the fact is most Americans to-day cannot rise into the better camp because the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer.
How many dollars does a billionaire need. Will he miss a few of the dollars he has. Bill Gates gives away tens billions and still has a nice shirt or two and can afford to eat steak everyday.
He puts his money into things the government refuses to fund. He knows that when he is dead he won't need the money he has given away. You should know that too.

[splashy]

You have confused socialism with capitalism.

Besides, is it engraved in stone that we have to have all one way of doing things? Why not a mix of socialism and capitalism? We could use unsubsidized capitalism (unlike what we have now, which is subsidized in many areas) for things like computers, vehicles, etc. where you can walk away if you want, and socialism for things like law enforcement, fire fighting, roads and health care - things we all need on a daily basis. It seems to me that would be more efficient and appropriate, and would make everyone much happier.

Well, except for those that would charge us to live and breathe. They would be unhappy that they couldn't indulge their greed that knows no bounds.

[doodlefarbe]

oldbutstillthekidd writes, "...I pay $417.00 every 2 weeks in federal and state taxes. ... Explain to me how the USA is run on that amount but heath care for myself and my wife can't..."


Your question is not really very valid as it is written, because it contains an unwarranted premise.

The USA is not run on your $417 biweekly federal and state tax.

It's also run on biweekly federal and state taxes that are 2 times what you pay, and from others, 3 times the amount you pay, and from still others, 4 or more times what you pay. And yes, virginia, there are others who pay less in state/federal taxes than you do.

On the subject of how much you pay for your health insurance (nearly $12000 per year) - that's about what an HMO family plan costs from Kaiser, BCBS, United HC, etc. In its entirety, I mean. So it sounds like you have no employer support at all. Are you self-employed?

On the subject of HMO bean-counter interference with a doctor's medical decisions, I agree with you whole-heartedly that this creates what I would judge to be an impermissible conflict. Unfortunately, the Federal Courts in the US have judged otherwise, and that is a shame. (There have been numerous lawsuits brought against HMOs for interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, but in most of these cases, unless the interference was very egregious, the HMOs won the case. As I say, a damned shame.)

EndTrans.

[JCP]

Its not the courts, doodlefarbe. Its ERISA (Employees Retirement Income Security Act), which congress wrote to specifically strip the courts of the power to review the decisions of the private plan administrators, whose decisions are given, essentially, the force and effect of law. The courts only have jurisdiction to hear disputes where the plan administrators manifestly abuse their discretion, or some similar standard.

[GenericBlogger]

oldbutstillthekidd asked "Explain to me how the USA is run on that amount but heath care for myself and my wife can't. I would gladly give the total amount for my health insurance to the government to assure every person in the US was healthy."

Greedy doctors, greedy hospital management, greedy lawyers, corrupt politicians.

[Wilburrr]

not quite. The system is driven by private health insurance companies. They put the squeeze on both ends by reducing compensation to doctors and covering less and charging more to the individual. There is no competition, you can't go elsewhere.­.. get a preventative HIV test? You no longer qualify for private health insurance.­.. cool racket, huh?

[EinChicago]

I will say this, as a parent, I cannot fathom how anyone of either political side can let any child go without health insurance.

[goldbear85]

Amen. More to the point, I can't fathom how George Bush and his Republican co-conspirators, could so actively work to ENSURE that children go without health insurance. The Family Values party? What a crock!!!!

The dog eat dog, maximize profit, anti-utilitarian party is what they should call themselves!

[areacode631]

oh please...y­ou leftists and your use of children for propaganda is reprehensible at best. you people murder children every single day with your support of partial birth abortions. You all make me sick!

[Veleria29]

How dare you accuse every person who is liberal supports partial birth abortions. We do not. We support education and birth control to prevent the unwanted pregnacy. The conservatives right wing party do not support any of this. The republicans and Bush are too thich headed to understand that one works with the other. If you want to stop abortions you must educate the young people and provide birth control to everyone.

[hotcognition]

religious conservatives are currently trying to overturn roe vs. wade and basically force people to have children regardless of the fact that they often cannot afford/care for them. education on contraception use would prevent many people who cannot afford to take care of children from getting pregnant. ever hear of "love the fetus hate the child"? well you're comment is the linguistic equivalent of that statement, claiming you care about unborn children but are unwilling to help when low income people choose "life" and therefore they have to struggle to care for their children.

politicizing the health of our children is what is really sick, and you're the one guilty of it. and by the way, i don't think you actually know what partial birth abortion is referring to. that's actually a term that was conjured up by the religious right and is misleading­...it refers to a practice that makes up such a small percentage of abortions and is only used when the mother's life is in jeopardy. science is not propaganda, so please either educate yourself on these issues or stop demonizing people for things that you quite frankly don't understand.

[Rand]

Funny... But didn't the CT Cowboy, when denyin g funding for embyonic stem-cell research, stand around with a bunch of "snow-flake babies"?

Didn't a scandal-plagued RepubliClown congressman from NY hold a press conference surrounded by children so that reporters wouldn't ask about sexual indescretions?

Sorry, but EVERY time you GOPers complain, it's because it's something you're not doing AT THE MOMENT!

[maddogbitesback]

areacode613; partial births are a medical procedure which doctors prefer for medical reasons. Not having a partial birth procedure doesn't mean not having an abortion. Try to learn a little. You can look up the history of abortion. It has gone on since Adam and Eve. They didn't have a huge family. And since they didn't have The Pill they must have relied upon abortion. And don't tell me they abstained. Neither could abstain from eating a piece of fruit that was forbidden. What a pair of humans they were. Endless trouble for the world because they just had to eat some lousy fruit. And that Eve - listening to a snake. Probably a snake in the grass. And to think women to-day listen to men and boys. And they listen to people like you. Sad

[splashy]

You make me sick with your lack of understanding what late term abortions are all about and blanket statements that contain no knowledge of reality.

At least I have investigated it. You have obviously not.

[marleysghost]

Just in case anybody is opposed to socialized medicine, we already have it. It's called Medicare. I am really concerned abut a country that can provide nearly free health care for the elderly and for government officials but can't find the money to provide health care for our children.

We have billions for warfare but whine when asked to fund health care. And don't talk about principles to me. If you can invade a sovereign nation and use torture to extract information from prisoners, there aren't any principles left to defend.

[Mormondude]

"I am really concerned abut a country that can provide nearly free health care for the elderly and for government officials but can't find the money to provide health care for our children."

Look again, Medicare faces 74 TRILLION dollars in future unfunded liabilities. That's how much money we would all have to plop on the table today to ensure that all future retirees have Medicare benefits paid for, IN ADDITION to all current and future payroll taxes collected on its behalf.

We aren't paying for it by any stretch of the imagination.

Pretending like we are, and that it's "free" doesn't do anybody any good. Suggesting that we extend Medicare-like coverage to an even larger population despite the enormous structural funding deficits we face is sheer idiocy.

[GeorgeWRumscroft]

Mormondude, as usual you left some facts out of your "analysis". The 74 Trillion dollar figure (a number that you obviously made up on the spot), for unfunded liabilities covers a period of 74 Trillion years (a number that I conveniently made up on the spot -- the "future" is a really, really long time -- provided that we can remove incompetent leaders from the hands of power). Since that works out to only one dollar per year, "What, me worry?"

[maddogbitesback]

You again Mormondude.

Look around you - north is Canada. Not so rich as America but able to provide each and every citizen with health care through taxes. They can do that because it is much cheaper per capita. Lots of Americans get medication in Canada because it costs less. Look at France and England - arch enemies for centuries. But both love French fries and both have universal medicare. ITS CHEAPER. PER CAPITA IT IS CHEAPER. The doctors love it. Researchers love it. Lots of great innovation and nobody - NOT ONE PERSON dies because they couldn't afford to go to the doctor. IT IS IDIOCY NOT TO HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. IT IS ALSO UNCHRISTIAN. During the English Revolution which predated the American Revolution by quite a few decades the issue was could you call a country Christian if people couldn't afford schools, or medical care. They also believed in one man one vote.

[1stsgtbill]

Medicare and social security are in trouble because because the Republicans ( it started with Nixon) started taking the money out of these programs to fund their wars and corporate cronies. If it would have been left alone as it was founded by Roosevelt where the money was to be invested in long term mortgages( FHA, VA,etc.)th­ere would be an overwhelming surplus of funds where we could have actually lowered the tax. You sound like you are to young for this debate.

[Mormondude]

"I am really concerned abut a country that can provide nearly free health care for the elderly and for government officials but can't find the money to provide health care for our children."

Look again, Medicare faces 74 TRILLION dollars in future unfunded liabilities. That's how much money we would all have to plop on the table today to ensure that all future retirees have Medicare benefits paid for, IN ADDITION to all current and future payroll taxes collected on its behalf.

We aren't paying for it by any stretch of the imagination.

Pretending like we are, and that it's "free" doesn't do anybody any good. Suggesting that we extend Medicare-like coverage to an even larger population despite the enormous structural funding deficits we face is sheer idiocy.

[maddogbitesback]

Nothing is free Mormondude. However some things cost more. Universal health care funded through taxes costs less per capita. Try to learn.

[Qbear]

Thank You for all you've already done for low income health, and your message is EXCELLENT, I hope members of Congress listen.

[calibpatriot]

First of all, let me mention that Simon's songs remain among my favorites.

Secondly, what Bush's vetoing of the SCHIP bill and the support that he's getting from the neocon Republicans come as no surprise to me. It's actually what I've come to expect of those greedy and callous hypocrites. Their aspiration is to destroy both the social progress advances and the safety net system that were crafted during the 20th Century and to return us to another age of "robber barons" in which we have a very small minority owning most of the wealth while which was created on the backs of a huge and impoverished underclass.

[average joe]

So little libby want a 81 cent tax on smokers? Another shake down on the poor there so good at it. Paul how about a two dollar tax on CDs. Then you and Bono will cry yourselfs to sleep every night. We can tax you rich people as Hillary says, but don't do. Tax spend as long as it not me. Music Trolls Boycott Them.

[maddogbitesback]

Taxing smokers a shake down on the poor. And dealing drugs is criminal - is that another shakedown? You make no sense average dude.

[WMK]

"I am asking those of you who supported the veto to reexamine your conscience, to find compassion in your heart for our most vulnerable and sweetest citizens -- our children. I am asking you to change your vote. If you do, I believe it will be one of the proudest days of your life."

Very well said Mr. Simon.

I see the message board crowd here at HuffPo and elsewhere want to point out how people opposed to the SCHIP program seem to have no heart and vent a lot of anger. Sure, maybe some of them deserve to be loathed for their loyalty to a heartless and cruel ideology that seeks to deny Government a role in promoting the welfare of its citizenry, but what Mr. Simon is doing is asking some of them to change their minds before it is too late, to do what many of us believe is right and pledge to make the SCHIP bill veto proof.

Yes the GOP ideological adherence to an ideology of Social Darwinism for people cloaked in code language like 'self reliance' and 'personal responsibility' and welfare/turns at the public trough for corporations seems a nakedly hateful and evil set of 'values' to have but we need some of them to think about facing their voters and explaining how they voted to bar sick children from access to doctors. We can't make any headway if we place venting our anger at their disgusting behavior and vile beliefs a priority ahead of appealing to whatever scraps of human compassion may still be found inside their shriveled black hearts.

So please Republican congress persons, make SCHIP veto-proof.

[SimonOne]

"the GOP ideological adherence to an ideology of Social Darwinism" - nicely put. This is EXACTLY what these people believe in... the survival of the fattest!

Of course, another aspect of their greed is that they want charities and "faith-based" groups to take over the welfare programs so that their power base can opt out of support for welfare through taxation. It's fair to share the burden equally. Sickness and disease strikes without regard to income and it is obscene for those with money to be able to survive and those without to be condemned to die. The U.S. for-profit health system must go. Health insurance does not protect every insured individual from being financially ruined after they have received treatment for serious conditions. 75% of U.S. individual bankruptcies are due to crippling health costs incurred through no fault of their own - other than the fact that they have shoddy insurance policies or inadequate cover. We need to share the cost equally, across the board. The most effective way to do this is through that dirtiest of all swear words - "taxes".

Single-payer, govenment-­administer­ed health care for all may not be what the doctor (or the insurance company) ordered... but it's what common, human decency demands!

[sparafucilli]

I'm a Canadian and have been following the pro/con universal care issue in the US for years. I imagine that if we did not have politicians with vision , will and heart in this country a few decades ago we'd have proportionally as many healthcareless victims in this country as in the USA (where it exceeds the entire population of Canada). I was very young when our system was conceived and have a sense that at the heart of the decision was a profound compassion born out of sincere Christian convictions (WWJD). I cannot help but feel that America has taken a wrong term somewhere and part of that misdirection is the belief that medical care is just one more counter in the supermarket.

[smallgal]

Yes, the system came from the Canadian heartland of Saskatchewan, an idea proposed by the preacher turned politician (statesman!) Tommy Douglas, voted by the people as the Greatest Canadian. Ever.

[drricklippin]

Thank you Paul Simon-Your music has carried me through some rough times

I honestly don't believe that some conservatives have the neuro-biology to be compassionate?

The rigid fundamentalist religious neuro-tapes laid down in early childhood may be immutable?

I sincerely hope and pray that I am wrong.

Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[cruisepuppy7452a]

Let me spell this out for anyone who isn't getting the fact that we ALL need socialized medicine. Its not a partisan issue, its a medical issue. It has no business being based on who is rich or who isn't, who has a job or who lost one, whether one is white or black, green or chartreuse, gay or straight, its a medical issue, a crisis. When all of us begin to falter, so does this country, and we cannot afford to falter when it is totally avoidable.
In this day and age of modern medicine, there are no excuses anyone should come up with to deny anyone healthcare. If someone is that damn greedy they have to make a lousy buck off of others demise, something is grotesquely wrong in what is getting preached from the pulpit. Materialism is a disease. It breeds greed and grotesque neglegence. It plays god with those whom it has consumed for personal gains.
Contrary to what a poster said, hospitals are turning away those who cannot pay, refusing to run tests on those who have no coverage, many through no fault of thier own. I was a victim and it damn near cost me my life. No excuses. Its not just lazy people who don't have coverage, that is a misnomer. Many of us who are hard working, can't get it, were turned down, regardless of our willingness to pay. Nobody should have a right to play god with our health, not congress or a senate, and for sure, not a president. They take an oath, and if they won't honor it, its time to step down and put someone in, who will, for the good of the American people, all of us.

[SaskiaStars]

great post!

[andrushka]

Thank you! Very well put.

[July]

If you are jumping up and down, screaming and complaining about helping families that make up to $80,000 a year get health care for their children, why are you being so quiet about doing so for those raking in over $165,000?

[pull the spaces out of the http]

h t t p usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htmhtm

(The current salary (2006) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $165,200 per year...A cost-of-li­ving-adjus­tment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it. -- there are other gems of info there as well!)

Members of Congress receive retirement and health benefits under the same plans available to other federal employees. They become vested after five years of full participation.

h t t www.opm.gov/insure/ure/

There are many plans that run over $1000 per month, but the congress person will only pay $300 or $400 of that, your taxes go to paying not only their salary but the remaining $500 or $600 per month for the insurance.

So why have taxes pay for health care for folks that make $165,000 per year but not help those making a lot less?

???

[doodlefarbe]

Dear July, who writes, "So why have taxes pay for health care for folks that make $165,000 per year but not help those making a lot less?"

But wait, there's more! Why have taxes pay for the pensions of those in Congress when we all don't get their pensions, too?

Why have taxes pay for protection for those in Congress when we all don't get their protections, too?

The answer, of course, is that your analogy is a little silly. The federal gummint is an employer (a huge employer, in fact). Like all huge employers, it provides certain benefits for its employees, including their pay, their pension plan, their health care plan, etc.

With each new HuffPo blog relating to SCHIP, dozens of commenters decry the fact that "those in Congress get health care for their kids... ...so why shouldn't taxes go to support all these other peoples' kids health care"?

Well, frankly, maybe our taxes should support all these other peoples' kids health care. But that's beside the point of an argument like the one you have made.

Why don't you use your same argument to demand that all citizens are entitled to and should receive the same pension as a Senator, instead of the measely social security retirement benefit? From the standpoint of being an argument, it has as much merit (and makes as little sense) as your original argument.

EndTrans.

[July]

So you like red herrings?

"The federal gummint is an employer (a huge employer, in fact). Like all huge employers, it provides certain benefits for its employees, including their pay, their pension plan, their health care plan, etc."

The government uses its large pool of people -- potential payers into the systems (it is large enough that actuaries call it a statistical universe) to purchase insurance from various private companies at highly reduced rates --follow those links to find out how low those rates are. Actually, bringing in more people will make the bulk plans even cheaper by having more bargaining leverage.

The point of the post is that the ones making the outbursts of complaint against helping lower income folks are not saying anything against those making massively more (in comparison) that are being highly subsidized at taxpayer expense. This is first order hypocrisy.

If you wish to debate the other points that rode in on your herring, ehh perhaps, when an author posts here on those topics.

[Judd16]

Love your music. Your show at the Fillmore in Denver was one of the best shows my wife and I have ever attended. Keep up the great entertaining.

ps. You're wrong about SCHIP.

[crossja]

Ah, the pride of ownership. We think we have it, but in reality, we are subservient to our government and to the trillion dollar debt it's handed us.

This said, it is truly sad that millions of Americans, particularly youth, are unable to receive the basic health care needed to live from year to year. But what may prove sadder is a genuine health care crisis, one in which most Americans will be unable to obtain health care.

If a universal health care program does come to fruition, each citizen, upper, middle and lower income, will have to fund it--the goverment is not financially stable enough to do so.

And if we the people, including some so-called middle class individuals, we who are struggling financially our own selves, are to provide for the health care of the boy next door, how then are we expected to provide for our own needs?

The Robin Hood approach has been applied before; it failed. It will fail again.

So what's the solution? I believe it's the free market approach that you've been hearing so much about. More goverment regulation is not the answer. The outcome would be devastating, quite like handing an 18-year-old a credit card with a $20,000 credit limit. Hmmm.

Basic needs--things we have to share--roads, some limited security, so on are necessities; they must be available to all.

But we are to have any hope of seeing prices decrease, competition must be fostered.

[RabbiOmar]

Free markets? Do we really have a free market system with health care? And why is OK to have government interfere with free markets when it comes to corporate welfare but not for health care?

[crossja]

Read again, please. I'm calling for a free market system, I didn't say we have one. And it's absolutely unacceptable for the goverment to interfere with free markets, in my view. Period.

[1stsgtbill]

It seems awfully funny to me that people like you do not mind sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas that comes from tax payers to kill people, but squawk about having to pay for the boy next doors health care. Talking about hippocrite.

[crossja]

Oh, 1stsgtbill, I have a huge problem sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas that comes from taxpayers to kill people. Huge problem! Just because I don't support the goverment's taking your tax dollars away from your need to fund health care for someone else, doesn't mean I'm a whoremonger.

[SamThornton]

I wonder how those who subscribe to such counterfactual beliefs as those expressed by "crossja" explain how other nations with economies comparable to ours seem to manage universal health care with so little effort.

If I weren't such a trusting soul, I might even think "crossja" were one of those agitprop types either hired or encouraged by the right wing to spread disinformation.

[crossja]

Funny thing, I'm anti neo con...

I can stomach only one candidate from the "right" and he's so far from the mainstream, both sides of the media refuse to give him the attention [Ron Paul] deserves.

And other nations socialized health care programs DO struggle. For example, England is losing many qualified dentists, and its people are resorting to pulling their own teeth or gluing broken crowns together.

And I lived in southern Ireland for several months. The people have access to health care when they cannot afford it. But there are long lines and not enough money going into health care. People become sicker as they wait.

[maddogbitesback]

Crossja - the debt is more like nine trillion but who is counting. Certainly not the Republicans who have increased it. Bill Clinton wh was the guy who actually lied about a blowjob, actually began to get the nation on track re debt but oops - along came another Republican. Reagan doubled the debt but then he wasn't all there due to Alzheimers. Bush senior and junior have really given it a tremendous boost. Remember. Republicans = rising debt and weaker economy. Democrats = lower debt and rising economy. Facts speak for themselves.