One of my favorites is a retort, apparently inaccurately attributed to the early 18th century lexicographer Dr. Samuel Johnson, after a woman sitting next to him allegedly said "Sir, you smell." He supposedly replied "You smell madam. I stink."

It has the beauty of both grammatical and scientific relevance.

Smell is a poorly understood - and I believe underused - physical sense in health care. The human nose is still considered the ultimate sensor, if not the most objective.

I even started a thread sometime ago about the Monell studies on the detection of sexual orientation from the smell of underarm perspiration.

The human nose is still the gold standard for the development of electronic instruments that match us.

I watched some of Obama speaking at a town hall meeting in Colorado yesterday. One of the questions came from a student (a business student, I believe) who seemed quite concerned that poor insurance companies would be at a grave disadvantage in competing against gov't-run healthcare (poor big business!). To which Obama replied: FedEx and UPS compete against the U.S. Postal Service don't they, and they seem to be successful, no?

I also thought Obama was smart to say that there is no perfect solution that will make everybody happy. You can't provide coverage for everybody without somebody having to pay for it. He did try to gloss over the fact of who is actually going to be doing the "paying" (big business? small business? individuals? insurance companies?), but in the end, helping everybody helps everybody in the end. Because we're going to have to pay for the healthcare of the population one way or another.

I see both sides of the argument, but this is the one thing that sticks out, and I think has so many people in "fear." Whoever "pays" is going to scream the loudest. Again, it's interesting that the definition of "rich" went from $250,000/yr to $350,000/yr, coincidently...or not. I literally get $50 a week yanked out of my paycheck already, I was in shock when I accepted this new position...the thought of it being more, depending on who does the "paying," absolutely infuriates me.

Had an interesting front page news article in my local paper the other day. It said the British have united over their support of their National Health System, thanks to the many lies and mischaracterizations being put out there by lobbyists, and the GOP here. That makes 2 countries now, Canada and the U.K. which say they are tired of the mistruths about their health scare systems......good for both of them...

What Obama wound up saying was "It's the post office that always has problems," a really stupid sentence when you're trying to convince prople to accept a government-run option.

Headlines today indicate the Administration has given up on the public option. Sickening.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/16/w...g_n_260733.html

So the guy who had an assault rifle at Obama's rally in Phoenix yesterday is black. What the? Another Joe Plumber perhaps? Planted, paid or misrepresented?
Mr. President, please don't abandon the public option because if you do, you'll be giving in to these conservative, Republican crazies, who shouldn't be deciding what's good for the rest of the country. They don't represent me.
Don't try to appease the Republicans, because no matter what you propose, they will fight you to the end.

Thats disturbing, and makes two guys with guns of some type at Obama rallies. Good Lord.....
meanwhile, I stand with Howard Dean who said it will NOT be health care reform without a public option. Supposedly they are saying nothing has changed about this in the Obama administration, I hope so. Poll numbers are down on this option, which is because the way it has been presented by th eoption, that and the fear card being used to excess. Fear always works it seems. Its a damn shame. I remain cautiously optimistic we can get on top of this issue again. We shall see....Co-ops just will NOT cut it.

I suspect the real effect of gun-toting at political rallies where there is no real threat to the toter will be that free speech will be dampened which is their goal.

But it will not change hearts and minds any more than unjust wars do.

It will increase the chance that an accident involving one of these guns will occur if the toter's views are challenged in a way that makes him or her feel "threatened".

The veiled threat of gun use has always been used to defend the "constitutional" right to bear arms. And every time the gun owners' views are challenged there tends to be attempts to make that challenge seem like a fundamental threat to his or her rights.

It is not difficult to see where this could lead.

The best way to defend the right to free speech in the face of these threats is to continue to speak out in public. That is exactly what they fear most.

We may look with disdain at the events in countries like Iran where free speech is met with the violence of hooligans who have the support of the authorities but we now see that we are not so far removed from them.

Allright Barney! I have been waiting so long for somebody to do this.

Classic Barney-isms!


To a LaRouchie shouting into her mic and carrying an Obama-as-Hitler poster: "It is a tribute to the First Amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated. Ma'am, trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table... I have no interest in doing it."

"I am struck by those who think laughter is a substitute for logic, but I guess if that's what you've got, that's what you go with."

"When you're through yelling, call me."

The entire meeting, which wasn't officially a "health care town hall", lasted 2-1/2 hours and covered a number of topics relevant to Frank's constituents. As for the health insurance reform / tantrum part, here's an entertaining and informative 15-minute segment -- stick with it if you can.

Even better is the dark humor of New York Congressman Anthony Weiner who debates the fundamental concept of "health insurance" as a means to deliver health care.

Health Care Through The Looking Glass

Montana senator Max Baucus should have such insight and backbone. Yet even he is beginning to see through the tactics of health care opponents.

We need to address the real concerns of the opponents: greed.

Will they have to pay for the uninsured?

Congressmen do not want to touch the Holy Grail of taxes. Since the last three or four elections both parties have argued that we can somehow magically continue to reduce taxes and maintain a functioning government. The middle classes are rebelling against constantly being asked to pay for everything because a few wealthy can simply buy their way out of returning to a graduated tax system that is even remotely similar to what existed before the Bush tax cuts; which lead us to an Alice in Wonderland financial crisis.

Edit to add:Though it is good that for once the extremists were not the only ones who had their say it is unfortunate that some good fundamental questions that were asked - and addressed either by Frank or by "questioners" who were more knowledgeable - did not receive as much publicity.

I just watched more of that "town hall" meeting on C-SPAN and one woman who was a doctor gave some good reasons why the current shortage of primary care physicians does not have to be worsened by adding nearly 50 million new patients to the system. Currently the increased payments that specialists receive incentivizes doctors to avoid primary practice for specialties. The same is true of surgeons. The more surgeons there are the more likely surgery will be recommended when other approaches might be medically proven to be equivalent or better. Also the difficulty in getting funding for medical school without going into huge debt that is more quickly paid off by becoming a surgeon or specialist decreases the attractiveness of being a GPs. I won't even go into the flashy image on prime time television that make GPs look boring.

Another issue is the payment for the health care other than physicians required by the new additions to the system. One fact that people find it hard to wrap their heads around is that we who have health insurance are already paying for them through emergency care which is considerably more expensive than seeing a doctor regularly and other increases in preventive care. And the public option will provide a downward pressure on waste and exploitation in the insurance industry that co-ops will not likely have since they could quickly be co-oped by the insurance industry. The competition from the public option is actually a better "free market" method of exerting downward pressure on the insurance and marketing industries that suck up so much of what is spent on health care. Perhaps a plan without it could be improved after passage.

I had forgotten that I wanted to respond to this post sil:

Ooohh!

...You're much too nice to imagine anyone treating you w/ such disrespect.

Don't let that get out. A guy could get banged up around here if he's considered too soft.

My partner and I are very straight with each other, and I try never to take constructive criticism the wrong way.

Been there done that sil!

My ex often "constructively criticized" me but in reality he was just being a jerk! Just sayin...

Oh & what did Jesus say, ""Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves." So I'm not worried about getting banged up around here. I'm certainly not naive nor a pushover.

Ok, back to topic!

I think I'll avoid that little hot potato since I'm not dealing with an "ex". So yes, back to topic:


There should be a special category for Health care Hypocrite considering the criticism coming out of the mouths of people who already have government-supported health care.

And this is one of the many things my partner and I agree on 100%.

We might differ though on whether the bombastic Wall Street financial manipulators should be criticizing health care as too expensive when they know for a fact that their jobs - and in some cases their golden parachutes - are directly or indirectly dependent on the massive bailouts received by some of the largest financial institutions in the world.

They see no connection of course. After all they "worked for what they got."

I honestly think that a financier with a computer chip can do more harm than whackos with guns at a debate.

Tonight's speech was yet another stemwinder.

Republicans were unimpressed.

I suspect both sides will continue with their current tactics.

Something with the essential reform elements will likely pass - with a rough equivalent to an insurer of last resort - with the federal government picking up the bill for those who can not afford health insurance.

Costs will likely drop slightly if the laws are enforced. But will rise again if anti-reform forces successfully diminish the Democratic majority in the House in the 2010 midterms or add a poison pill to reforms.

If there is little or no change in the Democratic majority in the house in the midterms then eventually a public option will be strenghthened and costs will drop, perhaps more than before, despite the senate.

All of this assumes that there is not a health crisis such as an epidemic, or a number of widespread natural disasters of a Katrina nature, that affect the middle class more than the poor.

The probability of such disaster increases daily. If the Republicans achieve a House majority I expect terror.

Huffington Post: Rep. Joe Wilson Yells Out "You Lie!" During Obama Health Care Speech (VIDEO)

Well the outburst isnt doing a lot for Wilson's reputation but is doing wonders for his opponents funraising efforts so its not all bad.
What is it with these SC politicians.......Gov runs away for a week with his soul mate/ mistress, anti gay Lt Gov rumoured to be gay, and now Congressman Wilson. Must be something in the water down there.

Repressed bible thumping buffoons! That's the only explanation sib.

Add to that list senator Lindsey Graham who has long been the target of gay rumors.

Perhaps that near-applause that morphed gracefully into a hand-rub during Obama's speech was an advantage of having homosexual tendencies.

Joe Wilson may be a nutcase, but I wish some Dems had had the balls to yell "You lie!" at Dubya. Protocol? Who gives a sh*t outside of Washington?

Back to substance... I like this liveblog of the speech and this comment by Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer in particular:




http://ipaccuracy.wordpress.com/

Looks like an oxymoron.

But I find interesting one bloggers take on the important case on campaign finance currently before the Supreme Court.

Obama's speech Monday on corporate regulation may turn out to be critical in the health care debate and the USA's economic future.

If the current regulations to manage financial excesses do not eventually reverse wealth disparity we may all be in for a slow meltdown much worst than the near-depression so recently avoided.

Edit to add: Five more reasons to support the public option.

And five is probably the number of senators who will defy all logic and selfishly seek political gain by risking stripping the public option from a final bill.

It will be the poorest of the working poor who will be hurt most by their behavior, in their state and in others.

Interesting Op-Ed.

Listening to the right wing STILL talking about the "disaster" that is the Canadian medical system is really starting to make me wonder why people even listen to them.

We, my hubby and I, have had a VERY recent experiance with the Canadian system, and not a minor one.

You guys be the judge.

Sept 8th. Wayne, my hubby, is taken to the hospital by a neighbour as he is complaining of chest pains
and shortness of breath. ECG and X-rays are fine, but he is told he needs to have a cardiac
stress test. The hospital says to come in the next morning.
Sept 9th Wayne has a stress test, and fails. Is told he needs to have an angiogram, and the hospital will
call him to schedule one. They call later that same day, and offer him 2 dates, Sept 10th,
and Sept 16th. Due to a family wedding, we choose the 16th.
Sept 16th Wayne has the angiogram, and is told by the cardiologist that they cannot do a balloon
angioplasty because of the location of the blockages. He is told he needs a triple bypass and
due to the severity, he is to be admitted to the hospital that day. Surgery is scheduled for Wed
Sept 23rd.
Sept 18th Wayne is operated on, and a double bypass is done.
Sept 23rd Wayne is released from the hospital, with follow up at home.


Now, given that he is a "normal" person, and this was all done through a public medicare system, based on NEED, someone tell me where the "disaster" is in this.

Oh, total cost to us? $115.76 for TV and telephone for the 7 days.

I agree Canmark. Had many similar experiences with both my parents over the last years of their lives. About the only things we as a family ever paid for were the ambulance rides and as you mention tv and phones. Really the only times when there are major delays are when it is determined that the surgery is elective, and then there are wait times as electives come after need. Sure Canadians complain, we always want more and faster servies but damn few of us would willingly give up on medicare.
I see the US is to have no public option in whatever mess of a heathcare plan comes out of Congress. I really fail to see how you can have national universal heathcare without it being a public plan but am sure the great minds south of the border will find away to at least spin this to appear a great thing.
I wonder how members of Congress would feel if their goldplated heathcare plan was taken away and they had to shop around for coverage for themselves and their dependents. Given the age of some members and their known heath issues I am betting it wouldnt be cheap if they could even get private insurance. Maybe they should have abolished this first before trying to create a national heathcare plan. It might have given Congress some insight into real need and costs.

The public option is FAR from dead. This was only the Finance Committee which voted yesterday and the vote was not unsurprising. Baucus has the Insurance lobby who lines his pockets. I saw and heard interviews with Senator Hawkins ( D) and with Charles Schumer who both said the public option is not going away. Senator Hawkins went so far to say that a bill with a strong public option will be on President Obamas desk by the end of the year, so I will continue to hold out hope, and will never give up hope on this. My Doctor provided me with some real interesting paperwork from a medical web site that took a look at health care reform from the medical communitys' viewpoint. I didn't know this but the country of Taiwan transitioned from a US healthcare type system in 1995 to a single payer system that initally covered 97% of the population will little or no additional cost. So, it can be done, but it will have to be over the insurance lobbys' shrill screams..

Let's keep in mind that "Health Reform" in Congress is about anything but providing affordable heath care to those who need it. It's all about the insurance companies getting what they want.

I speak with authority. I have an unmitigated health issue. Yes, I have 'health' insurance because I have a job. But I can tell you right now, it won't cover the stent I had placed in my heart last Friday, because it will be recognized as pre-exisiting condition. The insurance company will refuse to cover it.

And so, my for care, diagnostics, procedure, and two night stay in the hospital last week, I expect a bill for about $65,000.00. And just what do you think I'm going to do with that invoice? I'm tossing it right in the garbage can. There is NO WAY I have that kind of money to pay for what I needed to keep me alive.

Then, I won't worry about it at all, because, it simply doesn't really matter anymore. I'll be long dead before they can capture me, to try to make me pay. I can't.

Am I angry about all of this? I was for awhile. But then I realized why fret? It will only hasten the inevitable.

TRL

Is that a pair of balls I see growing on a Democrat.

Or is it just a guy who knows how to make a buck?

Well I'm glad he's making it now in Washington for a good cause rather than gambling on Wall Street.

I see where Olympia Snowe has broke her silence and says she will support the Baucus Bill which is huge. Now the bill gets out of the Finance Committee and hopefully the public option can be added. It wouldn't surprise me if Sen. Weiner or Widen were the first to bring up the public option next week when the next round of hearings begin. I was very pleased with AARP's response to the Insurance Companys load of crap yesterday about how high premiums/costs will go up if this ( Baucus) bill is passed. PLEASE! The costs will go up even higher, if this bill is NOT passed. AARP called their take grossly untruthful putting it mildly. Round two now begins.

When The Heritage Foundation and Fox News become this excited about a study, that in itself is a reason to be suspicious.

Not even conservative Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee dared site this study. And the Republicans who did had to fall back on baldfaced lies that even the most right-wing publications seem not willing to repeat.

When Senator Grassley suggested that the Baucus bill would constitute the first time that the government would force Americans to pay for something I could have fallen off my chair.

Though he may have been referring to abortion what he leaves out is that we are all already forced to pay taxes - unless of course we have an illegal off-shore bank account to dodge them.

His clumsy statements and logic have been the running joke of the anti-health reform positions.

Now that the bill goes to the full senate it is possible that real reform may actually pass.

I expect another October surprise awaits, but desperation has apparently made them careless. We shall see.

From what I know and understand, and according to Senator Reid, it does sounds like there will be a health care reform bill WITH a public option, and will also have an opt out option for states that don't want it. So far there is reason to cheer.

Hopefully. We'll see what comes out of the reconciliation with the House bill, assuming the Senate passes something amenable to redoing.

Edit to add: The ultimate test of the final bill will be whether it lowers the overall cost of health care in the country without decreasing quality. That leaves a lot of room for compromise among the Democrats, if nothing to the Republicans - who at this point are only praying for failure of whatever the Democrats pass.

However Democrats and Independents are already lining up for their special interests. Joe Lieberman's seems to be his reelection as far as I can tell. Tom Carper may want to protect his state of Delaware's insurance industry, whereas Evan Bayh - who is probably at least being most honest - blatantly prefers to protect health-related industry in his own state regardless of how it affects the cost of Indiana's products to sick people who are that industry's customers.

I suppose one might cynically consider this a good sign, since none of them is so far threatening to prevent the bill from getting to the floor, except maybe Lieberman.

Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana may be another matter. They along with a few others seem to seriously have the potential to "go down in a blaze of glory" by joining a Republican filibuster.

Doesn't lieberman translate directly as "love man"; or perhaps "love of man"?

In that case, where's the love Joe?

Would you support the "public option" for $2.6 million?

Or do we need up the ante?

Maybe we could make him the poster child for campaign finance reform instead.

Two huge endorsements over the past 24 hours, the American Medical Association, and AARP both have endorsed the House bill. Huge for Obama and for the Dems. The GOP health care bill is hysterical. No mandate for precondition coverage what so ever, and would cover LESS Americans that the House bill. A joke. Total theatrics yesterday at the Capitol. And that loon Michelle Bachman leading the way.....

What frightens the GOP most is that health care reform passed in any form will become so entrenched that it will be political suicide to run against it: like Medicare and Social Security (which they could not destroy by selling it off to the Wall Street cannibals).

Well men, (and women) change is HERE! YAY! Now for the Senate. After a full day of whining and crying, the Republicans have proven once again why they did not deserve the White House. I have seen less bawling in the cry room of our church. My goodness...is this where the teabaggers learn how to conduct themselves...as if they were a bunch of babies? Politics aside, I am very proud of President Barack Obama for getting something done that all other presidents were unable to do. This is why he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. He gets things done. Rock on, Barack!

I was stunned to see that there was a Republican who stepped out of line to support the House health care bill and immediately had to find out who it was and what could explain the motivation for such an adsurdly suicidal act of "treachery"; at least as defined by the Beck-Limbaugh-Palin branch of that party.

Now that I have read some background on Lousiana 2nd district representative Cao Quang Ánh(Joseph) I can see multiple explanations for him becoming the party's only true maverick.

He's a scientist, with a degree in physics from a major university.

He was a Jesuit seminarian who decided against the priesthood to pursue a masters in philosophy.

His wife "Kate" is a retired pharmacist for a major distributor of pharmaceuticals.

The guy has even taught philosphy, and at one point sought to replace disgraced representative William Jefferson on the Black Caucus, just as he had replaced him in the House seat. It will be interesting to see if he is interviewed by the any of the shouting heads on 'talk television', especially the more conservative ones.

Here's an NY Times piece on Rep. Cao.

He's got balls I will say that! Good for him. He is instantly a HUGE target for the Teabaggers to use though, of course...and will be told he isn't Conservative enough and sided with Socialists, blah, blah, blah....

Rep. Cao interviewed on CNN.

Representative Cao, whose name the CNN reporter seemed to pronounce correctly to my surprise, is probably too smart to remain a Republican. And they might get just what they deserve if they run him out of the party: a democrat in his place, which is what he may know.

And that abortion amendment would not be cover enough for him were the Republicans not so in need of moderates. One only has to look at what happened in New York.

Much has been made of the Governor's races lost by the Dems in NJ and Virginia. But as state executives Governors have to balance budgets. The federal congress, as we have seen, does not since they have leeway to shuffle numbers and, through their influence on monetary policy, to actually indirectly "create money", inflated though it will be.

Representatives simply want to "bring home the bacon" to their districts and get themselves re-elected. That is the prism through which almost all of them are seeing this bill, regardless of what they say.

No doubt some are ideologically honest. And they will be rewarded for it. It just may not be in this life, or at the 2010 pols. So it will be interesting to see how many realize this will spin to their advantage Nov. 2010.

Uninsured trauma patients are twice as likely to die. Must be that hypocritical oath that our health system requires. Call it Stupak's Revenge since botched abortions could send a lot of women to this fate thanks to his amendment.

A George Washington University study's conclusions about the effect of the Stupak/Pitts amendment suggest it will eventually preclude funding of any abortion by a health insurance company.

It does not estimate the number of women who would die as a result. Most do not remember what it was like when abortion was illegal. It was no more effective than alcohol prohibition. And matters worsen during hard economic times, similar to the recently ended "recession" which may yet become a depression.

Should abortion be effectively banned by indirect means the backlash would be unpredictable in this day and age but that there will be one is nearly certain. Historically banning abortion by whatever means has never succeeded, any more than banning sexual activity. And not surprisingly the two seem to bear some relation.

Jewish columnist Peter Beinart gets it at least partly right when he credits Joe Lieberman's opposition to health care to his being "bitter".

But like so many others I think he either refuses to believe - or perhaps doesn't fathom - the full extent of Lieberman's resolve. There are fifteen currently serving Jewish senators in Congress. Of these, I think it is safe to say that Joe Lieberman is the most conservative, and probably the only Orthodox Jewish senator.

And therin lies the problem. "Orthodox" is only a designation of a particular sect within the Jewish faith for most. But for Lieberman it has more generic, and one might say, a much deeper meaning. Orthodoxy in any religion tends to lend itself to invariability and ideological purity. Even when the ideology holds no logic and bears no relation to any moral code.

Osama bin Laden is an "orthodox" Muslim. Mike Huckabee is an "orthodox" Christian. Lloyd Blankfein is an "orthodox" Capitalist. And Goldman Sachs is his current temple of worship.

If we all held "orthodox" views of the world and, forced them on everyone else, this world would be pure hell.

Hmm, where have I seen this picture before?


Well they have some excellent ideas. But do Susan and Arlen really want to be associated with that fellow in the middle?

Fortunate for Arlen, his likely opponent for the Democratic nomination will not be using this photo op:


A Repubican who flirts with Dems. A Dem who was a Republican who was a Dem. An Independent who was a Dem and is consistently...nothing.

Fortunately another photo with the three of them yucking it up like holiday celebrants does not seem to be on the web any longer. Some aide must have caught it.

Health care is no joke. This is not trilateralism. People are dying while you dither. Can we be serious?

I should have thought twice before wading into a thread whose title implies that anyone who opposes government-run health care is "stupid." But here goes nothing!!

Lieberman would not be doing his duty to the state he represents, if he did not support a major economic presence in his state, i.e. insurance companies.

To claim that people are dying while health care reform is debated is just as nonsensical as arguments about so-called death panels.

Obama wants a version of health care reform passed as quickly as possible, because he knows that he might not have the votes for it next year. Unemployment hovering around 10% does not bode well for the governing party, no matter how much they continue to claim problems were inherited. It's under his/their watch now.

Reasonable people do not want more government-run programs. Reform...yes. Stricter regulations of the insurance industry...yes. Government-run health care...no thank you. US medical care is the best in the world, thanks in large measure to the free market.

No, BB, I am going to respectfully disagree with you here. Our health care system is NOt th ebest in the world. WE rank # 37 in the world now with Costa Rico at #36. The number one cause of bankruptcy now in the U.S. is because of healthcare costs/situations. The amount of waste/fraud/abuse in the US Healthcare system in unreal. We can do MUCH better. Personally I would favor single payer/opening Medicare to everyone. This is the ONLY way to get a handle on exploding health care costs. But thats not going to happen. I then favor a strong Public Option, but now, that may be in jeopardy. As long as we have a FOR PROFIT health care system, we are going to get much much deeper into trouble and a bigger hole. Just last FRiday I believe it was Aetna Insurance said it was going to drop something like 600,000 people from its insurance rolls, because they aren't making enough profit. If this isn't a cryout for a Public Option, I don't know what is....rant over....

"68% of likely voters in Connecticut support the Public Option"

"45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance"

QUOTE

Republican Senator Johnny Isakson, who co-sponsored a 2007 end-of-life counseling provision, called the euthanasia claim "nuts".

Against my better judgment, I'm responding.
Lieberman's Own Word

Why I oppose National Health Care

US Health Care Ranking Flawed

That's it. I'm going to try to stay off this thread!

The status quo, is simply not acceptable. Lieberman is representing his clients, the Health Care Industry nothing more, nothing less....the only health care reform bill that will matter, will be one with a hopefully strong public option, anything less is a cave in to the Insurance industry. No Public Option, no competition, and Americans lose.

I don't really care for him, but I think Dr. Phil is relevant in this discussion. One technique he likes to use to try and get people out of denial and have a clearer understanding of their situation is to ask them "How's that workin' for ya?"

I don't think anyone can argue with any honesty or integrity that our current system is really functioning in a healthy way. Basically we're using health care to concentrate wealth for the already wealthy by making profit the goal.

To argue that big pharma won't have any incentive to continue R&D is ridiculous. They may have to do it differently, they may make less money and shareholders may not get the dividends and stock growth they're used to. I say GREAT. What have they done to us? All they're interested in is developing long-term maintenance solutions to diseases. They try to create demand where there really isn't much of a need (restless leg syndrome drugs come to mind), and they charge whatever they can. Curing cancer shouldn't be dependent on whether Phizer makes a profit.

To argue that we have the best health care system seems ridiculous. When free medical care events are staged people camp out for days so that they can be seen. Many have insurance but just can't afford the out of pocket portion of their care.

Having worked for a major insurance company in a claims processing unit I can't imagine why anyone would want a company whose profit is the primary purpose of its existence to decide what, if any, care they get. I'd much rather have my doctor make that decision.

BBC the article that says we aren't really 37th is written by a guy, who as best as I can tell from what little is out there about him, somewhat of a wingnut. Perhaps I just couldn't find it, but his "group" has no website or listing of clients so it's hard to know whether there's any vested interest in his "reporting".

Lastly, if health care was sooooooooooo bad in Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, Finland or many, many other countries why do the vast majority of their citizens say they love their systems? We know the French have the best nationalized system. The Swiss probably have the best insurance based system. Are we so nationalistic that we can't take what's working in other countries and make our system better? Or should we just suffer because people want everyone to think everything American is the greatest; that we have a monopoly on ideas?