Conservatives really wanted a fight about religious freedom. It appeared to be an easy win: turn an ObamaCare mandate that insurers cover birth control into a war on religion. The GOP, void of any ideas Obama hasn’t contaminated by agreeing with, finds itself in an election year frantically looking for a bold battle cry. That sweet hot button issue that can excite their party and (hopefully) win them the White House (or maybe the Senate).
Their old standbys have fallen flat: Iran, abortion, climate change, child labor laws, and even gay marriage don’t have the sparkle they once had for the Grand Old Party.
Republicans can’t seem to get excited about Mitt Romney as their ‘80s-teen-movie-smug-rich-guy-stock-character nominee. Worse yet, he’s Mormon, which makes evangelical leaders grumble. So having a common enemy is the best way to bring everyone together for the proverbial good fight: Freedom.
“It’s important for us to win this issue,” Speaker John Boehner told reporters last week. “Our government for 220 years has respected the religious views of the American people and for all of this time there’s been an exception for those churches and other groups to protect the religious beliefs that they believe in. And that’s being violated here.”
Is Boehner coming out against anti-Sharia laws?! Or is he just conveniently forgetting the government isn’t always so deferential to the pious? Mormons had to forsake polygamy to gain statehood, for one. In 1862 the then-General Ulysses S. Grant expelled Jews from his district of Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky. And there were plenty of states where you couldn’t hold public office if you didn’t swear to believe in God (as opposed to Allah, Buddha or a flying plate of spaghetti) until the Torcaso v. Watkins decision in 1961.
This whole charade of religious freedom collapsed under the girth of Rush Limbaugh. He pivoted what was supposed to be a church and state issue into snickering about young women having sex. For three days Limbaugh railed on law student, Sandra Fluke, who testified for congressional Democrats, calling her a prostitute and a slut for speaking in public about the need for birth control coverage. So the GOP was trying to take the high (read: holy) road and there was their mouthpiece driving them all off a cliff demanding Ms. Fluke post sex videos on the Internet.
Now here’s the thing: Even Rick Santorum who (oddly) thinks birth control leads to more teen pregnancies — who has previously said states should have the right to ban contraception — now tells Piers Morgan, “It should be available.” This was tempered with the now irrelevant point about religious freedom. But even the way-out, cringe-inducing, extremist-in-a-sweater-vest has to confess birth control should be available.
Affordability is accessibility. If it’s out of your price range — it’s out of your grasp. It doesn’t matter if the pill is offered over-the-counter or in vending machines — if you can’t afford it — you can’t have it. Fluke’s testimony was not about the legality or morality of contraception — it was about students not being about to shell out over $1,000 a year for a medication in addition to purchasing medical insurance.
If Republicans admit they think birth control should be available — that means they believe it should be within price range.
The conservative talking point on health care reform was summed up by Rep. Virginia Foxx: “There are no Americans who don’t have healthcare,” adding, “Everybody in this country has access to healthcare.” In other words: Everyone has access to cake!
We don’t say everyone accused of a crime has access to a lawyer without providing one. We don’t say everyone has access to police protection but charge more than anyone can pay. We don’t say every child has access to education but require an outrageous tuition. Access is not abstract ... unless you’re a Republican lawmaker.
No, when you’re a Republican “access” gets muddied with whatever sham controversy they hope will help them. This week it’s basic health care services for women.
Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the managing editor of Crooks and Liars. Tina can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com.
mnjcpa posted at 10:50 am on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
I know you're a syndicated columnist Tina so you probably don't read the comments, but you are truly a great mouthpiece for liberals - no matter how distorted you make it out to be.
This is an attack on religious freedom whether you want to agree or not.
Rush Limbaugh used a poor choice of words- but his point was true. Birth control is readily available, my daughter gets it for free. So a known activist - who knowingly went to an Ivy League college that costs upwards of $60k a year to attend, is operated by the Catholic church - went there anyway and complains after the fact? This is someone that had a political point to make not some poor college student like Pelosi paraded around Congress.
This country is going down in a cesspool of taste, decency, and censoring due solely to liberal progressive politics. I left a movie with my grandson the other day because an animated movie for children was so blatantly promoting liberal politics. My savings will go to home schooling so he won't be exposed to Big Government education indoctrination. I can't watch Saturday Night Live anymore because it's so lopsided. It's okay for Bill Maher to give Obama's Superpac a million dollars when he repeatedly called her despicable names. Where is the outcry on this one Tina? There is such a double standard it's very sad.
All this is about is taking the focus off what the real problem is - a radical President that has failed. I trust that Americans are smarter than what the Left hopes they are.
VofReason posted at 12:33 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Mnjcpa says this perfectly. I am sure some of the other regular commenters will certainly tell us were we are wrong, but this is absolutely true. She misses the additional point that the majority of citizens (operative word) disagreed with Obamacare to begin with and this is just another of it's troubling components. History will show that this is either the first or second worst President of all time- sorry Jimmy Carter. Additionally, the real pickle here is the fact the Government wants to force private businesses to do something, that is the essense of freedom infringement. I am sure Mrs Dupuy doesn't hera these points in the echo chamber.
Rich posted at 1:13 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
"History will show that this is either the first or second worst President of all time" At this point it's rather a given. Read the little blonde girl here. She can find a reason to deny religious freedom, freedom of conscience, All of it the triumph of sophistry to become the most intrusive administration this country has ever seen, with absolutely no positive results to show for it. Little Tina here seems to think the government is going to give away healthcare, when in fact all they have done is enact mandatory health insurance. It's all just twist and spin and it's only object is to separate you and your money.
Leon Ceniceros posted at 2:47 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Tina, Tina, Tina.........we don't live in a Socialist or Communist Nation. We live in a Capitalist Nation (since 1776 = 236 years ago). You are supposed to "WORK" for a living, Tina. The "old-fashioned way". If you want affordable Health Care for the masses then move to Cuba or Venenzuela or Russia.
Americans don't want Obama's ....."INCOME RE-DISTRIBUTION".
Americans want to enjoy the "fruits of their Labor" as it says in the Bible (oh, that's right, I forgot............Liberals, Socialists, Communists, Progressives and most Democrats don't believe in the Bible.....Karl Marx is their ....Jesus Christ).
Dale Whiting posted at 3:14 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Leon,
Though in somewhat better taste, Leon, your comments parallel those of Limbaugh. Where he called that college student a prostitute, you call Democrats socialists or Marxists and claim they cannot be Christians. How did you make this determination?
Rich,
I did not know that "history" maintained a list of good or bad presidents? Is it in a library somewhere?
VoReason,
Do you speak for or have tabs on "the majority of citizens," or are you just blowing off steam? Conservatives are good a venting steam!
mnjcpa,
You choice of pseudonyms suggests you are a professional. Care to share with us how you determined that "This country is going down in a cesspool of taste, decency, and censoring due solely to liberal progressive politics?" I'm interested in two aspects of this explanation. First, how do you determine that "this country is going down in a cesspool of taste, decency, and censoring." And second, "How do you determine the causality?"
More steam blowing. You guys are blow hards, not thinkers![sad]
Rich posted at 3:34 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Dale,
Since I lived it, I get to write it down. Of the Presidents I've lived with, Obama is the worst. Carter was bad, but Obama gets worse almost daily, as our quality of life does. Put it in a library if you'd like. All I have to do is look at the weeds in front foreclosed homes, and read the 'it's coming back" propaganda that shows up in the newspapers so often it's a running joke. The man has been a spectacularly, monumentally, gilt-edged failure. I know that with every gallon of gas I buy, every time I buy food, every time I need medical care. And all that is headed downhill gaining momentum. At least face the reality here.
Cerulean posted at 7:42 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
[smile] Good column Tina. [thumbup]
Dale Whiting posted at 7:52 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Rich,
I speculate that all of us have lived it, yet we still disagree. Certainly what makes for the good, the bad and the ugle is personal opinion. I was hoping you have some objective measures. But clearly you do not!
Apparently you blame the President for
1) home foreclosures, when the forces behind them predate his administration
2) slow recovery [propaganda that we are seeing a recovery] when quite frankly that UMass Econ professor I cited months ago explains why our recovery is going to take years and several administrations to correct [and it ain't trickle down economics]
3) higher gasoline and food prices [Sure they are correlated. It takes fuel to grow food and get it to market] when all objective studies [and much rhetoric on Fox News in 2009] admit that speculation on the futures market by those who do not buy crude oil futures to lock in prices is the underlying cause
4) medical care - your insurance costs might have climbed - they would be climbing even higher if nothing had been done.
No Rich, President Obama will not go down in history books as the worst president ever. And Jimmy Carter does not have that indictment either. Had Reagan not thrown out vehicle fuel economy standards, had we maintained the 55 mph limits, had we standardized nuclear power plant designs, had we taken seriously what Carter learned, we would not be anywhere nearly as bad off today as we are.
Now let's talk about what the next four years needs to be like, and figure out who [Romney or Obama] is best suited to lead us through those years. I sick and tire of all of this Neoconservative [neandertahl] hot air and steam venting ! ! ! ! Cut out the cheap rhetoric and let's talk substance ! ! !
Slabside posted at 8:14 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
" I sick and tire of all of this Neoconservative [neandertahl] hot air and steam venting ! ! ! !"
You type and spell worse than a neanderthal. Myself and others have posted enough facts about Obama's failed presidency to choke a fat liberal but you are too brain dead to see the forest for the trees. Any of the Republican candidates running could be a better president on their worse day with their eyes closed.
Yes, Obama will go down in history as the worse POTUS ever.
Dale Whiting posted at 8:30 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
No Slabside, you post opinions not facts. And the methods you "use" to form opinions are illogical!
gilbertgrandma posted at 8:37 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Once again, the issue is personal responsibility - liberals don't want you to have that, because they want everyone to depend on the government. Birth control is, and always has been, affordable. Eliminate one or two lattes a month, and you have the cost covered. This is not about availability or assessibility - it's about government intruding even further in our lives by telling churches, schools, insurance companies, etc. what they must provide. If insurance companies are forced to provide "free" birth control, do you really think they will not increase the cost of insurance premiums? How is that free? Oh, that's right - someone else pays, not "me".
Slabside posted at 8:46 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Dale, I've posted many facts. The most blatant fact is you are an ulta-lib and you can't spell.
Slabside posted at 8:48 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Well said gilbertgrandma!
Cerulean posted at 8:57 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
[smile] Good comments Dale Whiting. [thumbup]
Rich posted at 9:00 pm on Wed, Mar 7, 2012.
Dale,
The illogic here is that you are judging the events. I'm not.
Foreclosures, slow (no) recovery, high prices, medical. All I said was they are here. Nothing illogical there, you admit it. He's President, he's done a bad job. Nothing really illogical there either, he was paid to fix it, he didn't. I don't really judge it I don't have fanciful explanations, and believe me UMass Econ prof is right up there with Dodgeson. I don't care why, I don't look at the wild assertion that something would be worse, that mean, nasty speculators are the problem. He was supposed to fix it. Change it for the better. He sold the job and as you've just admitted, he didn't do it. And what is illogical about stating that?
Dale Whiting posted at 7:50 am on Thu, Mar 8, 2012.
No, Rich,
You named the events, concluding that they showed evidence of this Administration's failures, so to speak pinning the tail on President Obama, and I called you on your apparent conclusions that these events were his fault. You were the jury, I was the judge of your logic and reasoning. Your conclusion has just been restated. " He's President, he's done a bad job." I asked you for examples of the "bad job," you stated about four examples, and I pointed out the falacy of concluding that President Obama will go down in history as the worse president ever.
Now, if you are arguing that he fiddled while Rome burned, that's another matter. If this is your argument, you've got to state what ought to have been done. And don't try "trickle down economics" or cutting taxes on the rich. That argument is as false as they come!
So, your assignment is to go back and cite those things which ought to have been done but were not. I'll ceed that taking on the issues he did take on cost us some momentum. For that, I believe we all understand why he was motivated to do so. It was a part of the "Change" he promised us. Just as I don't blame Hoover for the depression, I don't blame President Obama for this recession. "Big business" had more to do with the cause of both. And business regulation to curb greedy excesses would be a first big step forward. But you and I both know that $$$$ says that regulation will never happen. Now lets talk about this "Change."
The President did misjudge the economy. This was his staff's doing. Interestingly, we now are hearing that Christine Romer warned him, but that other advisors convinced him that Romer was wrong. Reminds me of Murray Weidenbaum as chief economics advisor under Reagan. Both resigned to go back into academia after their chief failed to follow their advice. Romer was right. But Wiedenbaum was not.
Bottom line is this. The person who takes the oath of office on January 20th 2013 is in line to be tried and tested, as are all of the successors, tried and tested like no one has ever been tested before. If we want him or her to be successful, we need to get rid of the likes of Mitch McConnell and Rush Limbaugh who only want failure so that their favorite can be the replacement. For the replacement is destine for a measure of failure, too.
Now if you want to understand why failure in large measure is inevitable, go read what that UMass Professor says. In effect, it's the global economy, Stupid! The question is not "will we slide down hill?" but "how far will we be sliding!" And the professor points out what we need to do to take grease off of the skids.
So if you are observing that the President will go down as a bad one, at least cite the rational reasons for why pinning that tail could be justified. But pin the tail on Mitch McConnell and you and I, too.
wgauthority posted at 8:33 am on Thu, Mar 8, 2012.
Slab, dale whiting is living proof that "There is none so blind as he who WILL not see" We are still waiting for a full explanation of "Fast and Furious". Hopefully we'll live that long!
Slabside posted at 11:18 am on Thu, Mar 8, 2012.
So true wgauthority!
Rich posted at 11:59 am on Thu, Mar 8, 2012.
Dale,
More of the same. I'm not assigning blame. Hoover can be assessed the way you are doing, so could Carter. It's really irrelevant, and actually at this point just sophistry. He's President, the quality of life in this country declined, as far as history will record it, that's the name of that tune.
mnjcpa posted at 3:11 pm on Thu, Mar 8, 2012.
Rich – Don’t you love Dale’s smug arrogance? Your comment to Rich - I'll ceed that taking on the issues he (Obama) did take on cost us some momentum. Seriously? You’re so far off on your understanding of the damage this administration has caused or our economic conditions (big business) that it’s laughable. Another four years of Obama, unhinged to do whatever he chooses to do, - count on America going bankrupt.
I’m not interested in recruiting you Dale. I’ve illustrated facts in many articles on economic conditions that if you read with an open mind communicate our financial problems. You rarely respond nor do I care what you think. When one of those articles comes up, by all means debate me. But that's not what this article is about.
The discussion I had about cultural corruption has to do with my belief (yes Dale this is an opinion column) that culturally (movies, tv) America is taking a nosedive which has been caused by the liberal media in the form of journalistic malpractice.
bobunf posted at 2:25 am on Fri, Mar 9, 2012.
Here are some facts: The United States has the most expensive health care system in the world by a very wide margin, it has far worse results than any other developed country and those results have been getting worse for decades.
Number of countries with higher life expectancies at birth than the US:
1980 16
1992 19
2000 22
2009 29
The reason for this dismal performance, demonstrable in many other ways, is restricted access to health care services in the younger population. American under 30 are about 40% more likely to die than residents of other countries. Under 50, about 30% more likely. Under 70 (after Medicare kicks in) American are about 20% more likely to die. Over 80, about the same.
All these excess death rate exactly track health care though insurance with a delay of ten to 20 years before the effects of seeing the doctor regularly are fully effective.
The average Japanese, Australian or Canadian live more than three years longer than the average American. A baby born in Sweden or Iceland is half as likely to die as an American baby. And it keeps getting worse for Americans.
That the US has the world’s most expensive health care system and the worst health care outcomes of any developed country are empirically derived facts. And no, it's not age distribution, income, population density, ethnic diversity, injuries tobacco, alcohol, drug abuse, obesity, other dietary issues), incarceration rates, fertility, teen pregnancy or radiation exposure.
It's access to health care. It really does do some good to see the doctor.
Obama's very modest moves in the direction of universal health care (which the rest of the developed world has had for decades with excellent results both fiscally and medically) are absolutely essential if Americans are to quit dying so fast after spending so much money.
This means the taxpayers will fund some things some taxpayers don't like. Christian Scientists may not like coverage for appendicitis. Jehovah's Witness, blood transfusions. A very tiny percentage of Catholics, Muslims and uber Orthodox Jews, birth control. I don't like funding the stupid drug war, nor invading other countries for no good reason.
That's the price we pay for living in a civilized society. The government spends money we don't like. It were ever thus.
It is important to minimize the conflict over such issues to the extent possible. Pretending outrage over imagined injuries isn't helpful to that task.
k33j88 posted at 6:29 am on Fri, Mar 9, 2012.
Dale, would you please move to an autocratic, socialist country where your views get monitored and viewed as potential provetors of the state. You won't be happy unless this country removes all semblance of a constitutional republic, our "freedoms" are redefined and homogenized, and any dissent is immediately removed for re-indoctrination. Race card, victim card, personal attacks-----at least you're consistent.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:45 am on Fri, Mar 9, 2012.
O*M*G, bobunf, YOU HAVE TO STOP THAT RIGHT NOW.
Logical, fact filled posts like yours:
1) waste electrons trying to sway the un-swayable dogmatic right wingers
2) just annoy said right wingers ... they have no interest in actual facts
3) shine the light of reason and truth upon right wing lies about health care
4) give right wingers a head ache
5) and will doubtless cause an avalanche of right wing denials here
Rich posted at 11:14 am on Fri, Mar 9, 2012.
bobunf,
You're hypothesizing. Your empirical facts are correct, but your hypothesis won't hold up to them. It is possible that seeing a doctor regularly is a factor, but hardly a certainty, only a possibility. For example, you are actually showing a condition of diminishing returns for the cost of healthcare, almost classic, glaring, and yet you disregard it. Is the problem really that with insurance billing, an insurance bureaucracy sitting on medical professionals to 'OK' procedure, taking what is a personal service and turning it into an assembly line, a factory? That hypothesis is better than yours, more probable.
Willie doesn't understand Empiricism and touts logic, which he violates with almost every post. You've posited some interesting statistics, probably not enough to reach a conclusion, but indicative of a problem. Then you kite off with a hypothesis that doesn't really match them. Japanese, for example see Medical doctors, less often than Americans. Though they do tend to see other types of 'health' professionals as or more often. My in-laws (I guess, my daughter-in-law's family who live in Japan) rarely see MDs and would never have surgery that involves cutting into the body, yet most see an acupuncturist regularly.
Your quoting statistics, and then coming to a conclusion they don't fully support. What is absurd with Obamacare is that you are adding a governmental bureaucracy, on top of an insurance bureaucracy, making everything more expensive and less personal, when the statistics you quoted rather highlight the fact that the problem is that it has become more expensive and less personal.
bobunf posted at 2:07 pm on Fri, Mar 9, 2012.
Rich, the comparative statistics I referenced do not show "a condition of diminishing returns for the cost of healthcare" classic or otherwise. You must misunderstand what the numbers mean to make such a statement. They quantify the difference between mortality in the US and other developed countries. An unfavorable difference that declines with increasing access to and expenditures on heath care in the US.
They show a declining excess death rate among Americans as they obtain better access to health care. To cite a few more numbers (just in case the first batch wasn't enough:
Uninsured at Least Median Excess
Age One Year US Mortality
Under 4 12.0% 30%
4-6 12.2% 27%
7-12 14.8% 17%
13-17 17.6% 46%
18 25.7% 38%
19-24 37.6% 45%
25-29 33.6% 47%
30-34 27.0% 43%
35-54 21.8% 33%
55-64 16.8% 22%
Over 64 0.6% 5%
Obviously, there's some lag between the time when individuals acquire health insurance and the effects of increased medical access are reflected in lower comparative mortality rates. Keeping in mind that the developed countries against whom the US is so unfavorably compared all have universal health care from age 0 up. The first column is all zero except for the US.
The correlation does not prove causation, but it is certainly suggestive. Especially since it holds true for every developed country in the world. They all have universal health care, they all spend less than half per capita what the US spends, AND they all have far better health outcomes.
It's hardly surprising that restricting access to health care increase mortality. It would be astonishing if it didn't. No other explanation comes close to explaining these phenomena, although I frequently encounter other suggestions, none of which are hold up.
Rich posted at 6:58 pm on Fri, Mar 9, 2012.
Bobunf
"They show a declining excess death rate among Americans as they obtain better access to health care."
No, they don't, you're interpreting a cause that isn't borne out in the effect. Better insured Americans live longer? There are larger racial differences, larger birth rate statistics, You're looking at numbers and attributing a cause to the effect. rather like saying ice cream is good, therefore I shall live on it. Doing statistics on how close people are to Burger King. The numbers don't say it, but you are.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:21 pm on Fri, Mar 9, 2012.
k33j88 wrote: "Race card, victim card, personal attacks-----at least you're consistent." -- Well stated, and something I've commented upon time and again. Did the meeting ever occur? Wasn't it Dale that required decorum? Yet, he fails to practice what he preaches time and time again. For a second, Dale sounded similar to Rush!
The facts are that each side has it's own "quantitative" data. Therefore, majority opinion would probably be the best guide.
I guess it depends upon whom is asked:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116479/barack-obama-presidential-job-approval.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
bobunf posted at 1:31 am on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
Rich, the figures show that better insured age cohorts of Americans have lower rates of mortality than poorer insured Americans. And that even better insured foreigners have even lower mortality rates.
Those are empirical facts, supported by volumes and volumes of unquestioned data over the last 50 years. It is NOT an assertion of cause and effect.
But given these two sets of data, one has to ask is one the cause of the other? The correlation exists between age cohorts of Americans, and between age cohorts of Americans and their equivalents across all developed countries in the world. It is also a plausible explanation: that access to health care has an impact on mortality.
No one has proposed any other explanation that comes close to explaining these voluminous phenomena.
Of course, one can close one's eyes to what should be mind numbingly obvious; like we did with cigarette smoking for decades. "None so blind as those who will not see."
Rich posted at 7:22 am on Sat, Mar 10, 2012.
Actually, since care declines when costs are raised, you can also posit the opposite with equal probability. Lower the cost of it and it's quality will increase, of course only if you postulate a free market where competition exists. Which is one of several different solutions to the problems your numbers show.
I'm surprised you didn't look up smoking stats before making your statement. The decline in smoking has not resulted in a decline of any significance in 'smoking related' disease. It was a little Puritan cause that hurt a lot of people and has taken joy from their lives, but healthwise, hasn't done anything, except elevate some non profits to pay ridiculous salaries and benefits, and spread insupportable notions, such as those you expressed.
Quoting numbers doesn't automatically confer the right to make claims. Especially if the claims aren't supported by the numbers.
bobunf posted at 10:19 am on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
I can’t believe that Rich actually is challenging the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. This is like challenging the Germ Theory of Disease. And Rich’s challenge is based on ignoring or ignorance of the most basic facts. His post increases ignorance in the world, rather than knowledge. He should be ashamed.
Per capita cigarette consumption in the US:
1900 54
1920 665
1940 1,976
1963 4,345. The historic high
1970 3,985
1980 3,849
1990 2,834
2000 2,049
2010 1,500 estimated
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/economics/consumption/
Estimates of the median latency period for smoking induced lung cancer extend from 30 to 55 years. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/100/5/354.extract, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8033741
From these two sets of very well established facts, when would one expect to see a sharp decline in the incidence of lung cancer? I’ll point out that the first large decline in cigarette smoking in the US occurred from 1980 to 1990, a decline of 24%. One would expect to see the beginning of the effects of this decline in smoking from 30 to 55 years later. Or, for those statistically challenged, starting as early as sometime after 2010. The most recent year for which statistics on lung cancer incidence are available is 2008.
Of course, it is possible to look beyond the aggregate data and consider the differing historical trends for White males, Black males, White females and Black females. Data which does demonstrate a correlation between declining per captia cigarette consumption and incidence of lung cancer.
But it’s easier to shoot off a post based on nothing, than it is to try to figure out how things actually work in the real world. It is this kind of absurd argumentation that has contributed to the US having, by far, the most expensive health care system in the world with, by far, the worst health outcomes of any developed country. Contributing, quite literally, to the early deaths of Americans.
If the Japanese, Canadians and dozens of other countries in the world, know how to live longer than Americans, why can’t Americans learn from them? Rich is part of the answer to that truly disturbing question.
VofReason posted at 1:36 pm on Tue, Mar 13, 2012.
Yes I don't know how many times when the topic comes up that people say, "that just wouldn't have happened when Carter was President". I am sure they are probably wondering if they can chip off Washington's face from Mt Rushmore to squeeze Carter in. Heck they may have to add a whole new mountain for Obama. Carter evidently didn't play well in the 70s as he didn't get re elected. My guess is Reagan got a little bit of a boost in popularity over his presidency for following such a goof. Or should we make sure with Dale that the majority of citizenry thought that reagan was a good one.