Big day for the US

[tim wolcott]

Thanks Michael, it just seemed like steam was coming out of my computer when reading this.  It's like africa Hot.

Yes, your right Michael, I do spend an tremendous amount of time studying, looking and appreciating photography and every aspect of it.  Tim

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My guess is that a successful reform of health care would benefit most citizens, but may not benefit the health care industry and the insurance business which essentially takes the customers money and give to the health care industry making a healthy profit for them selves.

Best regards
Erik

No, I will not pull it Tim.

As long as the discourse remains about ideas rather than insults, it stands.

There's more to life than photography, and America being dragged kicking and screaming into 20th Century health care (notice I don't write 21st Century, because it's not there yet) is a good thing and worthy of discussion here, and anywhere else.

Michael

[Mike Louw]

Hi,

My guess is that a successful reform of health care would benefit most citizens, but may not benefit the health care industry and the insurance business which essentially takes the customers money and give to the health care industry making a healthy profit for them selves.

Best regards
Erik

As an outsider,  relatively ignorant of the US healthcare system, I have one question to which I'd really appreciate honest answers from those in the know:

If I were a, say, 40 year old US citizen, born and resident in the US, but jobless through no fault of my own due to ill health and having no insurance, what quality of health care would I receive for my chronic condition (I'm not talking of ER treatment)? How would it compare with the care available to a wealthy individual with private insurance? How would waiting times for treatment differ?

[Photo Op]

.....The Gov gets to expand to 159 new agencies, Yes I said 159 new agencies hiring how many people,  when they hire usually the least qualified people and are the laziest people ever hired......

.......Health care is not a right, it should be earned and then only offered when you have worked......

.....I work damn long and hard hours to get what I got, so others can benefit from me.  Not a chance, this bill is for the lazy, who are milking this country dry!......

I'm going out on a limb here, but my guess is you didn't vote for President Obama!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's eight years of war. Nobody but the Congress (and its creatures) estimates the cost of the medical bill at $1 trillion: the actual cost is estimated by most authorities at about $2.4 trillion. I'm not saying the war is a trivial matter -- too many people have been killed -- but the cost of the war can also be borrowed and then amortized over a long period of time. The cost of the medical bill is annual, and never ends.

Ahhmmmm.... whether you take someone's $1 trillion or your $2.4 trillions, both estimates are not annual, but over ten years, i.e., perfectly comparable with the war cost. And again, even if one takes the high estimate, we are talking about 40%, i.e., the cost of war would be 40% of the cost of healthcare, hardly something that could be described as "trivial".

And just for the record, I am not trying to justify one with the other. Both should be judged on their own merits. The only connection I am trying to point out is that the same people who complain "we can not afford it" do not seem to have the same problem with more or less the same amount of money when it goes to fund wars.

[Rob C]

Let's keep the war out of this, If we had U.N. instead of some pussies running it, we the U.S. and a few other countries who don't stick our head in the sand wouldn't have gone in to Iraq.  Remember why they were formed, to stop future wars!!!!!

Next you will make the absolutely stupid comment, "there were no WMD's"  that's right tell that to 110,000 that were killed by them in Iraq.  I guess we were imagining those mass graves of dead kids, women and men lying there decomposing.  I guess that's right the holocaust didn't happen also.

Sorry Alan, Typo

Jamie

I was one who thought it was a reasonably good idea to invade Iraq because it held WMDs. Except that I had no idea at the time that prior to the invasion it was already known that that was no longer the case and that the posturing from that country was for local consumption alone, designed to make it appear a more formidable adversary than it really was to anyone there wishing to take it on; I imagine you can guess which neighbour.

So, not only were you guys conned, but so were we Brits; worse, all that back-slapping from Mr Bush of the Holy Mr Blair, the assurances that the UK was the US's greatest buddy has been blown in the last few hours by Mr Netanyahu being given the same back-slappy treatment along with the assurance that the US has no greater ally than Israel.

What a long marriage that was! And we didn't even know we'd been divorced!

No wonder I never accept invitations to join clubs.

Rob C

[ckimmerle]

Next you will make the absolutely stupid comment, "there were no WMD's"  that's right tell that to 110,000 that were killed by them in Iraq.

To correct your assertion, we invaded Iraq, or so we were told, because they were developing WMD's that were a "direct threat" to the U.S. and other western countries. It had absolutely nothing to do with the prior internal use of chemical weapons. Tell that to the families of the 3000 plus American serviceman who have died there, so far, due to "inaccurate intelligence".

[michael]

OK, I think that people on both sides have now had their say and we're starting to veer off in other directions.

Topic closed.

Michael