I agree 100% with what you had to say. Too many Americans have been brainwashed by fear, and I think many Americans who are against universal healthcare are just buying into the Chicken Little syndrome that is so prevelent in this country lately. The sky will fall if all of our citizens have access to affordable healthcare!

As you said, using France's system as a model does not mean we have to do everything exactly as France has, but they are a great example of a system that is working.

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

*Pro-life to me means anti-war, anti-starvation, anti-subjugation, etcetera, for all living things.*

I can't thank you enough for such a compassionate post. You're right. I would give anything to not be in this position, though I am grateful that Medicaid exists for people like me. It's the "people like me" caricature that causes my shame and self-disgust. I was brought up to believe that only the dregs (sp?) of humanity are on Medicaid assistance.

To me, it represents a myriad of losses: My loss of control over my own life and ability to earn an income, my loss of control over the devastating things my body is doing to me, my loss of control over my own self-reliance, and my loss of self-esteem.

If more people were as compassionate as you are, this country would be a much better place.

I can't thank you enough for such a compassionate post. You're right that my absence on this board is a direct result of my health problems, and you're right that I would give anything to not be in this position, though I am grateful that Medicaid exists for people like me. It's the "people like me" caricature that causes my shame and self-disgust. I was brought up to believe that only the dregs (sp?) of humanity receive Medicaid assistance.

If more people were as compassionate as you are, this country would be a much better place.

Thank you again for the kindest of responses and wishes that I could have ever hoped for in this forum. I can't even begin to explain how good you have made me feel.

FBI has better things to be working on and I'm afraid if this is any indication they are going to be bombarded with inappropriate statements.

.....no amount of money would induce me to volunteer to be tortured (you know, beaten cut, burned - severe pain or harm). But cut me a check (certified only, please) with a number followed by a whole lot of zeros and I would be waterboarded (strictly in the interest of science). Our special forces are trained to withstand this and other 'harsh' interrigation techniques...... It's scary and unpleasant but way different from having your fingernails pulled out or a field generator and alligator clips used.

I had in mind more like $500,000, but yeah, for enough money I would certainly consider that an offer I couldn't refuse.

in the article you posted, nor did I see the word *impeach* anywhere in the article.

I agree with your comments and with the article you referred to, and I understood the comments of LOL to mean that the article was responding to some sort of "talking points" and using the word impeach often, when in fact, it can't be found once in that article.

As far as impeaching Bush, I believe time will tell. I personally believe he's guilty of war crimes, and that his war will be judged to be illegal before the end of his "reign as King of the USA." (if we all manage to survive that long).

The mere fact that he led us into this war based on lies should be enough to impeach him.

If I offended you, then I truly apologize. I agree with you and I'm glad you posted this article. I surely wouldn't have referred you back to the very article you obviously read and posted and tell you to educate yourself, and in no way, shape or form do I believe you are ignorant; far from it.

If you posted the LOL statement below, then I apologize for misunderstanding what you meant by it.

I made a mistake when posting my post, and instead of winding up under the intended post, it wound up under yours instead. Again, I'm sorry if I offended you.

Sorry, but I haven't been able to post lately due to some problems, but the FOIA report I posted and said to pay attention to certain pages....Clinton KNEW there were WMD's in Irag in 1996! Did he do anything? Nope. He left the country he was visiting right before a bombing; i.e., he knew it was going to happen. The jist I got of the report was that he knew and did nothing.

Did you read that report? Don't want to dredge up old presidents but you seem to do it every chance you get, so I just have to respond to that. Bush also knew but did nothing because the CIA,DOJ, FBI and whatever other departments were to keep him informed but never worked together on anything so he got conflicting reports all the time. Was he a mind reader? Doubt it or 911 would not have happened.

I read last night regarding voters and pocketbook issues. In this survey 2/3 polled want universal health care. Those graphs are great! The health insurance companies are largely the culprit. The Teflon Don would be less greedy than BCBS, Aetna, etc.!!!

Poll: Pocketbook Issues Rising

By JIM KUHNHENN and TREVOR TOMPSON � 1 day ago

WASHINGTON (AP) � Kitchen table worries pushed ahead of the war in Iraq over the past month, a shift toward pocketbook issues that has gained currency as the election year dawns.

More than half the voters in an ongoing survey for The Associated Press and Yahoo News say the economy and health care are extremely important to them personally. They fear they will face unexpected medical expenses, their homes will lose value or mortgage and credit card payments will overwhelm them.

Events, however, can quickly change public opinion. Thursday's assassination of Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto could draw more attention to terrorism and national security, an issue that still ranked highly with the public and which 45 percent of those polled considered extremely important.

This latest AP-Yahoo News survey of more than 1,800 people by Knowledge Networks offers a unique opportunity to track changes in public attitudes as the presidential campaign unfolds. The first poll was last month and set a base line to measure national sentiment.

In the new results, men and women approaching retirement were especially attentive to the economy and health care, with six out of 10 ranking both issues extremely important. Politically, the attention to such domestic issues hangs darkly over Republicans. Voters say they are far more likely to trust Democrats to handle the economy and health care.

Consider Linda Zimmerman, a 50-year-old sheep farmer from Thurmont, Md. Her daughter and son-in-law are having trouble keeping up with two mortgages on a town house, she said. One street in her neighborhood has five homes for sale, and one has been on the market for two years.

Registered as a Republican, she's ready to reconsider.

"We're Republicans and I'm very unhappy with them, and I've been watching the Democrats," she said. "We did better when (Bill) Clinton was in than we did with Bush. It's just terrible."

The Democratic edge on such issues illustrates the predicament Republicans face going into a presidential election. Iraq doesn't dominate the news as it used to, replaced by headlines about slumping home sales, high gasoline prices and a credit crunch.

The impact of Bhutto's assassination on public opinion depends on whether Americans perceive her death as an added threat to the United States. Terrorism was the only issue polled that Republicans were more trusted than Democrats to handle well.

Republican Rudy Giuliani had benefited most from people's fears of terrorism. But over the past month his level of support dropped, even among voters who said terrorism was an important issue. Giuliani is now trying to get some of those voters back, releasing an ad Thursday that uses images of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York.

All in all, though, voters appear to be weighing other issues at least as heavily as the country heads into the first voting of the presidential election.

Financial worries have risen in prominence. Forty-eight percent of those polled said Social Security is extremely important to them, up from 42 percent in November. That's virtually the same as the 46 percent who considered Iraq extremely important.

These new public concerns are reflected on the campaign trail, where candidates are hitting domestic topics hard. There too, Democrats have an edge over Republicans when it comes to connecting with their core voters.

Overall, 42 percent of Democrats are very or extremely satisfied with the amount of attention their favored candidates are giving to the issues that matter most to them. Only 32 percent of Republicans feel that way about their candidates. Of all the candidates, Democrat Barack Obama gets the best rating among his supporters.

Bill Hine, a 65-year-old Vietnam veteran from Warrenton, Va., considers himself a "soft Republican" who is partial to John McCain. But the nation's health system needs fixing, he said, and he's not happy with what he's hearing.

"A lot of Republicans are just anti-anything, anti-changing anything, and that's one of the things I'll be looking at," he said.

Six out of 10 people polled said they believe it is at least somewhat likely that the U.S. economy will enter a recession next year. Slightly more � 64 percent � said they worried about a major unexpected medical expense, and 55 percent worried that the value of their stocks and retirement investments would drop.

Forty-four percent said they were concerned that the value of their homes would decrease during the next six months. That sentiment was especially strong in the mountain states.

"Middle-class America is being chipped away at," said Edward Lemieux, a 57-year-old pattern maker from North Smithfield, R.I., who plans to support Obama for president.

His view is influenced by the flight of manufacturing jobs from his state, by the "For Sale" signs that outnumber the "Sold" signs on neighborhood lawns and by his mother's health care needs.

"We're all of a sudden becoming a country of rich and poor," he said. "The middle class is eroding."

Despite those worries, respondents have grown slightly more optimistic about the direction of the nation during the past month. Nearly three out of 10 say the country is on the right path, compared with 24 percent last month. This uptick in the national mood is evident in both parties, though it's much stronger among Republicans. Still, more than seven out of 10 said they believe the U.S. is headed down the wrong track.

Interest in immigration � a major issue in the Republican presidential contest � remained the same as last month, with 37 percent saying it was an extremely important issue. But for all the candidates' efforts to distinguish themselves on that issue, the poll found that none of the leading contenders holds an advantage among Republicans who feel most strongly about immigration.

Sentiments on health care and the economy could make a difference in the Democratic contest.

Hillary Rodham Clinton and John Edwards supporters have much stronger feelings about the economy and Social Security than Obama voters. Edwards has staked his campaign on a message of economic populism, while Clinton draws 40 percent of her support from people with household incomes of less than $25,000, far more than her rivals.

Clinton, Obama and Edwards have been feuding over who would provide the most comprehensive health care plan.

Nearly two-thirds of voters polled said the United States should adopt a universal health insurance program "in which everyone is covered under a program like Medicare that is run by the government and financed by taxpayers." Fewer, but still a majority at 54 percent, said they supported a single-payer system whereby all Americans would get their health insurance through a taxpayer-financed government plan.

Lynn Haynes, 42, of Huntington, W.Va., works in the state government's welfare department where she sees clients who can't afford health care. What's more, she has a 35-year-old sister who is developmentally delayed and "falls into the cracks" of government assistance programs. She's a registered Republican, likes Giuliani but supports universal health care and is giving Democrats a hard look.

"I see too many people at work especially who just don't get any health care," Haynes said. "I look at what they get for retirement and Social Security, and I don't see how they live on that and afford their prescriptions."

The survey of 1,821 adults was conducted from Dec. 14-20, and had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 847 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.4 points, and 655 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.8 points.

The poll was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.

AP News Survey Specialist Dennis Junius and Associated Press writer Christine Simmons contributed to this report.

Ahh, the paradox of what is God's will. "Thou shalt not kill" being one of the commandments, I find it really strange how many bloody battles are chronicled in the Bible and of course, God's team always wins. So what's that message - don't kill unless God tells you its cool? How do you know GOD is the one telling you to kill - maybe its a demon impersonating god and trying to get you sin by killing without God's express permission?

Certainly our president must have a direct line to God and has direct permission to go kill - it can't possibly be God's will for those people to stay alive (yet strangely he created them in the first place, hmmmm).

And what about bugs and vermin? Its OK to kill them - right? Its OK to kill animals for sport and food, right? Don't need God's permission to kill them - even though it is presumably God's will for them to be alive or they wouldn't be here?

posts that is important to understand the profound difference in liberals and conservatives...while I don't agree with the exact wording...it is in the right vein. She said "liberals view it as a human issue and conservatives view it as a business." That is not entirely true, because that suggests conservatives do not view it as a human issue at all. They do. The difference is, I believe, that while conservatives do have the same compassion, that is tempered with sober thinking. Thinking about what it will cost. Thinking about the long-term effects. Thinking about how it affects everyone. There has to be that balance. One part of the family needs to try to keep the other part of the family from giving away the farm, to put it simply. You make similar decisions in your personal lives. Your kids want a lot of things. You can't afford to give them everything they want, so you have to make choices. There just needs to be that balance. That is obvious from the postings. Any long-term effect or cost of an entitlement is not entertained, and if it is brought to light, it is greeted with, for lack of a better phrase, "Why do you want to rain on the parade?" And that really is not the intention. Conservatives are not against everyone having health care. Conservatives are not against helping those truly in need. Conservatives are against keeping people in poverty and beholden to the central government for their every need. That is a dangerous path.

Why can't we ask the government, instead of just adding yet aonther entitlement, to look at how much money comes in from income taxes as they now stand. Then look at how much is spent on entitlements. If it is the consensus of the nation that national health care is the most important to them, then that should be funded first. Without raising taxes. That would be reform; you say you want reform.

Why not reform the welfare system? Much money could be saved there. Tighten it up. Stop making assistance permanent if the person is able to work. Give them a check, and with that check mandatory participation in job training and placement program, and when they place you, the check stops. No more endless welfare checks for people who are able to work. If it is a low wage job, then other entitlements can help...food stamps, etc. Get people off the government tab who are able to work. I think we would all be amazed at how much money that would free up for other more important entitlements. That is what I am talking about. Let's not create yet another entitlement and raise taxes yet again. Let's tighten up the government belt.

All that being said, I still have great reservations about national health care from a socialism point of view. Reform health care, introduce more free market negotiation to get the cost of health care down....all those things I am not against. We don't know if it will work or not, but I would think we should try that first before starting down the slippery slope of socialist programs.

In closing, I would just like to say....we are all Americans, and we do have that in common. Our lives are probably very similar and we probably come from about the same economic group. We have differing views, but that doesn't mean we can't treat each other respectfully and not take postings personally, and yes, I am guilty like others of the "pouty postings." I would like to start away from that, and am going to make a concentrated effort to do so. I hope others will join me. We can have discussions, disagreements and lively debates...without disliking someone we don't really know because their opinions differ. AsI have said and others have said...we have friends or family members with opposing views, but we manage to get through that. My stepdaughters both are verryyy liberal gals, and we have lively discussions, I agree with them occasionally and they agree with me occasionally...and in the end...we all know where we would like to go, we just differ in how to get there.

I couldn't find the Russert quote because you misquoted. I believe both Cheney and Russert changed their positions since this interview.....

As far as the "747" you mention -- I couldn't find it because it was actually a "707" and here is another opinion on its significance:

"a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain�s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. �We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,� the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane�which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training�when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. �That�s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,� the former agent said. �They train in basements. You don�t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.�

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war."

Nice post piglet. All your points are well made.

Poll: Pocketbook Issues Rising