Posted by osu (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I say let Boss and drug-attled gasbag Drug Limbaugh and Palin lead the party and rally the teabaggers! Look at their results! The true Republican dropped out of the race and now the district is represented by the first Democrat in 150 years.

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure the Republican party will appreciate your keen insight. Now I await next week's column, which I'm sure will deal with why the Democrats lost the governorships of NJ and Virginia.

Or the screamers over the defeat of gay marriage in Maine. Their screaming has certainly reaped results as well, right?

Posted by osu (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The BIG story is that the two Democrats campaigned on health care reform, with a robust public option, and won. Wall Street Journal Poll from week of October 30...72% want public option.

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sure freshman Owens will have a big impact on healthcare. At least he's getting a photop op with Obama this afternoon for his newsletters. He'll do what he's told, even if the percentage was 10%

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I find it amusing that the media is promoting this Demo win in a one of 435 seats, while barely giving attention to the two gubernatorial wins with their treasure trove of power. Such haste in stating that these wins had nothing to do with Obama or any of his policies, before anyone had the chance to attach blame to him.
And where are the anti war protestors? I recall that one reason Nixon was elected in 1968 was the public's desire to end the war. When he didn't within a year, the public outcry was savage. When he escalated the war, nothing else he did mattered, the attack was on. I can't help but wonder if there will be an eventual backlash on Obama if he doesn't end the wars. Of course, the press hated Nixon, and adores Obama, so it may take awhile.

Posted by muskratt (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It still puzzles me that 7,000 clueless people of the 23rd district that still voted for Scozzafava just because she had a "R" by her name.

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To call a pro-life,anti "gay marriage", anti cap and trade, no amnesty for" illegal" aliens, gun rights red neck, christian, " far right" ,is not correct. This used to be called mainstream america.
I hope in the next elections mainstream america will prove me correct.

Posted by bleedingheart (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, and I also recall a "white, coloured-hater" was defended by being called mainstream.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on November 6, 2009 at 11:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Cashmere's question, "Where are the anti-war protesters?" is an interesting one. I have a theory about why Americans aren't protesting the egregious wrongs we live with daily, Wall Street bailouts and insurance monopolies and idiotic wars. I think it's because we have bread and circuses on steroids now, 300 channels worth, to keep us occupied. I think people used to read and think and talk more. They were paying attention.

Posted by cashmere (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

My theory is that we are still hoping that Obama will solve some of it. All that is going on is getting low poll ratings, but his remain fine. At some point that will change if things continue as they are.
I have to think that the left will scream just as loud as the right on their issues, if these wars are escalated rather than scaled back or ended by the the election next year. The Republicans, after stumbling around most of this year, have found a good theme, where are the jobs? The Obama administration and the Congress are going to have to answer that as well at some point, not just plead for patience and talk about "saved" jobs.

Keta, you are right about bread and circuses....and it didn't work out so well for Rome.

Posted by BigBob (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ah, Jimbo, you disappoint me. Why didn't you give us your leftist analysis of the fact that the governors-elect of New Jersey and Virginia now have the (R) following their name? This despite the help of that brilliant campaigner Barack Hussein Obama. What happened, Jimbo?

Or why not give us your opinion on why the DemocRATS can't pass government takeover of healthcare despite the fact that they have solid majorities in both houses?

Or tell us why Barack Obama's approval rating has fallen from 65% on the day he was inaugarated to the latest which is that only 49% of voters approve of his performance (Rasmussen Reports).

Or why not tell us why the DemocRAT stimulus bill that was going to keep unemployment under 8% hasn't and the unemployment numbers are3 now at 10.2%? Give us some profound leftist spin on that one, Jimmy boy.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by muskratt

It still puzzles me that 7,000 clueless people of the 23rd district that still voted for Scozzafava just because she had a "R" by her name.
--------------------------------------------------------
So Muskratt, if you filed an absentee ballot and your candidate dropped out of the race, you're "clueless"? She dropped out of the race just a couple days before voting. Maybe not everyone watches TV and reads the news 24/7.

And Dede Scozzafava was not a moderate, she was an ultra-liberal republican... sort of like Spector... a RHINO.

For some strange reason, I don't remember Crawford defending Joe Lieberman for being a "moderate". And look at moveon.org demonization of bluedog democrats.

And Keta, we had 300 channels when Bush was in power yet we still had anti-war protesters. The real reason that there are no protesters is that democrats would never criticize the messiah.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The health care program not adding to the deficit is also another democratic lie. It's based on collecting money immediately but not starting the benefits for 5 years... So, you are collecting money for ten years to pay for five years worth of service.

Posted by keta (anonymous) on November 7, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

300 channels explains Bush's two terms. DemocRATS, Democratic lies.....classy as always, guys. Never change.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DemocRATS, Democratic lies.....classy as always, guys. Never change.
----------------------------------

Keta... do I really need to go back to your previous comments and post some of your "classy" ones?

And I notice you don't refute my facts... I was wrong on the years of service.... we will pay for 10 years worth of health care and get 6 years of benefits... That is the only way democrats could get it to be deficit neutral. After the ten years is up though, the program will add over $50 billion (low estimate, the high estimate is $250 billion a year) to the deficit... so, the health care program WILL eventually contribute to our ballooning deficit.

So yes, when the demoRats say that this program will not add to our deficit, they flat out knowingly lie to the American sheeple.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 8, 2009 at 11:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is an another example from England why we don't want the government involved in health Care:

Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections

Tens of thousands with chronic back pain will be forced to live in agony after a decision to slash the number of painkilling injections issued on the NHS, doctors have warned. The Government’s drug rationing watchdog says “therapeutic” injections of steroids, such as cortisone, which are used to reduce inflammation, should no longer be offered to patients suffering from persistent lower back pain when the cause is not known. Instead the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is ordering doctors to offer patients remedies like acupuncture and osteopathy.

Specialists fear tens of thousands of people, mainly the elderly and frail, will be left to suffer excruciating levels of pain or pay as much as £500 each for private treatment.

The NHS currently issues more than 60,000 treatments of steroid injections every year. NICE said in its guidance it wants to cut this to just 3,000 treatments a year, a move which would save the NHS £33 million...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/health...

The National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is the type of "Death Panel" that Palin was talking about. As costs soar, to keep within budget, the government will limit more and more procedures that are allowed... there will be cost benefit analysis performed... Sorry grandma, you don't fit into our equation... You can try taking the blue pill to ease your suffering... forever.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 8, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; Your selective, derogatory and infantile posts concerning Socialized Medicine never fail to give cause for amusement. If you were being open minded and fair in your observations you could also post just as many or more derogatory remarks about our free enterprise medical system. I think anyone who takes your opinion serious is making a mistake. I notice the information you used in your previous post is taken from the Telegraph. My compliments and admiration to the English people for their self criticism and acknowledgment of their need for questing their Medical system which they have been using since 1948.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 8, 2009 at 7:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mikehaney; Concerning your post of 11-06 at 1850. My compliments. Plenty of food for thought here!

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 8, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

keta; Your post of 11-06 at 2310, an excellent observation. Thanks.

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 6:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Mick

Keta--cnn chan7,3,8 and 13 news(mostly 3),hist chan,discovery channel,pbs when I can stand it--that's 7 channels---300??? not enough hours in the day.
Internet--tribune,ch 3 news,bbc,fox news,canadian free press,daily independant, herald dispatch, etc.-and mainly in the evening hours.
Actually a person can catch up on the news day or night with the internet. I think it's great.
Historically children voted the way their parents did,democrat or republican. I've gone from democrat to independant to republican. Presently if the republicans don't straighten up I may have to go another direction.
Anyone out there know of an honest politician I can vote for? It is hard to differentiate between an honest person and a liar.

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 6:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I still say the final health bill needs to be printed(2080 pages now?) in the newspapers and internet for six months before final vote. Bailout money could pay for it(or should I say chinese money).
This would give us time to march on Washington if necessary.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 9, 2009 at 7:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mikehaney; I concur with you post of 11/09 1827. I also have gone from "Democrat to Independent to Republican. I have no concrete answer. We must remain vigilant. It is difficult to abandon the Democratic Party (the party of the people), maybe we should remain in the Democratic Party (the party of our father's) and try to change their platform. Thanks Mike for your interest and concern.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 9, 2009 at 7:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jim Crawford; Thank you for your thought provoking article.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 9, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers, I still see you like to whine whenever I present facts that shows the follies of a governmental run system. You're reduced to calling articles as "juvenile" that you don't agree with. Sorry that you have a problem with the truth...

And it's not just a problem in England but here in the states:

Salem, OR (LifeNews.com) -- Opponents of state-run medical insurance argue that government rationing would result in people being consigned to die. Opponents of assisted suicide legislation argue that it presents a slippery slope in which the state would eventually have people killed. A harmonic convergence of sorts has taken place in Oregon which proves both points. Oregon resident Barbara Wagner found out last month that her lung cancer, in remission for about two years, was back. After her oncologist prescribed a cancer drug that could slow the cancer growth and extend her life, Wagner was notified that the Oregon Health Plan wouldn't cover it. It would cover comfort and care, including, if she chose, assisted suicide. (Sure sounds like a death panel to me Mickakers) Responding to the news, attorney and author Wesley J. Smith has this to say, "We have been warning for years that this was a possibility in Oregon. Medicaid is rationed, meaning that some treatments are not covered. But assisted suicide is always covered. And now, Barbara Wagner was faced with that very scenario." Later, a representative of the pharmaceutical company called Wagner and told her it would provide the medicine for free. Wagner said she didn't know whether to laugh or cry, so she did both. "I am just so thrilled," she said. "I am so relieved and so happy." Smith says this isn't the first time this has happened. "A few years ago a patient who needed a double organ transplant was denied the treatment but would have been eligible for state-financed assisted suicide.

Now for some good news:

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of likely voters say it is at least somewhat likely the next president of the United States will be a Republican, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The number has been trending in this direction since Democrat Barack Obama took office in January and is up 14 points since then.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 9, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; You are presenting, HALF FACTS, and selective information to promote your personal perspective, thereby misleading the people who have misplaced confidence in your opinions. You would much better serve yourself and the people you think you represent by seeking all the facts and then presenting the whole truth. Also, you would come to a more informed opinion.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers, People already know what problems we have with our current system. I don't need to inform them. Somebody has to show the follies of a government run program, because we sure won't hear from it from you, liberals or the press. And when I prevent the evidence, it's not my "opinion", it's a FACT. It's not my opinion that the government of Oregon told Barbara Wagner that they would pay for pills for her suicide but not for cancer treatment. It's a verifiable FACT.

It's not my opinion that England Orwellian sounding N.I.C.E. made it government policy to not administer pain shots so they could save money, it was a fact.

So stop with the distortions of the truth.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh and mickakers, even some democrats are now saying that this bill will not control costs. Something I've been saying for a while...It sounds like my uninformed opinion is actually quite informed:

Democrats Raise Alarms Over Health Bill Costs

WASHINGTON — As health care legislation moves toward a crucial airing in the Senate, the White House is facing a growing revolt from some Democrats and analysts who say the bills Congress is considering do not fulfill President Obama’s promise to slow the runaway rise in health care spending....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/health...

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thr true reason for the health care bill:

The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 10, 2009 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

SEEKING THE TRUTH: concerning Health Care. I urge every American to do their own research and come to an informed decision. Please check out, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/... Also do a search on - how does britain's national health service work - Also a search on - competition lacking among private health insurers - There are pros and cons in this investigation, thereby giving you a choice. A person should never allow themselves to be influenced by the rantings and ravings of a highly prejudiced individual. An informed decision is an intelligent decision, but not necessarily a WISE one. Be open and honest. My personal opinion? We are being influenced by a very powerful and wealthy lobby, like sheep being led to the slaughter. May God grant us all the grace of Wisdom & Love

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 10, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My Dear Mr. Crawford; As an Educator and Journalist, you always seem to bring out the best and worst of us. My compliments.

John Michael Akers

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 10, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; Maybe we need a third party. The two we have are not doing a very good job for the betterment of all Americans. Historically speaking, I realize, this may not be a good idea, but something to think about. The wealthy lobbyists, I am afraid, are in control and they know it. Do you realize this?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 7:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"We are being influenced by a very powerful and wealthy lobby, like sheep being led to the slaughter."

Yes, you are correct. That is why Howard Dean said that there would be no meaningful tort reform. The democrats are in the back pocket of the powerful lawyer lobbyists.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 7:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey, if you don't believe me that our health care system is better, ask the British:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/articl...

I deeply resent the Americans sneering at our health service - but perhaps that's because the truth hurts

... The question that interests me is whether there is a grain of truth hiding amid these insults. I'd say there was. I'd say that under the present system which President Obama is hoping to improve, most middle-class Americans are liable to receive better health treatment than their British counterparts.

If I were a middle-income American living in Seattle or Chicago, I could almost certainly rely on superior care than if I lived in Birmingham or Newcastle...

But whatever the failings and excesses of the American system, the statistics suggest that it delivers better outcomes than the NHS when dealing with serious illnesses. I say 'suggest' because we should always be wary of comparing figures compiled in different ways in different countries.

In treating almost every cancer, America apparently does better than Britain, sometimes appreciably so. According to a study in Lancet Oncology last year, 91.9 per cent of American men with prostate cancer were still alive after five years, compared with only 51.1per cent in Britain.

The same publication suggests that 90.1 per cent of women in the U.S. diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2002 survived for at least five years, as against 77.8 per cent in Britain.

So it goes on. Overall the outcome for cancer patients is better in America than in this country. So, too, it is for victims of heart attacks, though the difference is less marked.

If you are suspicious of comparative statistics, consult any American who has encountered the NHS. Often they cannot believe what has happened to them - the squalor, and looming threat of MRSA; the long waiting lists, and especially the official target that patients in 'accident and emergency' should be expected to wait for no more than four - four! - hours; the sense exuded by some medical staff that they are doing you a favour by taking down your personal details

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

From the Mail Online

National Filth Service: Report reveals wards overrun with rats
by Daniel Martin
Last updated at 8:55 AM on 06th August 2008

“Filthy NHS wards are being plagued by pests – with maggots found in slippers and rats in maternity units, it was revealed last night.

Hospitals are so dirty that pest controllers were called out to 20,000 infestations in the past two years.

Experts warned that the appalling levels of hygiene added to the danger to patients from the deadly superbugs MRSA and C.diff, which multiply in the same environments as pests.

Official figures obtained by the Tories show that 80 per cent of NHS trusts reported problems with ants, 66 per cent with rats and 77 per cent with mice.
Cockroaches were reported at 59 per cent of trusts, biting insects or fleas at 65 per cent, and bed bugs at 24 per cent.

There were infestations of maggots at a further 6 per cent of trusts. And many of the pests were in clinical areas.

The data, revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, shows that, on average, every trust in the country calls out pest controllers once a fortnight.

At one hospital, a horrified patient awoke to find maggots in her slippers. At another, expectant mothers were dismayed to find the ward overrun with rats, while at a third hospital, a store for sterile materials was infested with mice.

More than two-thirds of trusts had to call out pest controllers 50 or more times between January 2006 and March 2008.

At one trust alone – Nottingham University Hospital – there were no fewer than 1,070 pest incidents between 2006 and 2008.

Last year’s report into the deaths of 270 patients from C.diff at a Kent hospital trust found poor hygiene was directly responsible for the outbreak.

Posted by mikehaney (anonymous) on November 10, 2009 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Neosis---The enviromentalists are for the health plan!!!
If patient refuses to go to a filthy health care center they will die.
If patient goes to health care facility they will die.
Lower population saves trees and reduces pollution. Even Al Gore is happier, and the dems, and Obama,and----

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 11, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The following quote is taken from, TIME in partnership with CNN, Tuesday, Aug. 18, 2009, Is Britain's Health-Care System Really That Bad? By Eben Harrell / London. " Like most developed countries, Britain ranks above the U.S. in most health measurements. Its citizens have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality, and the country has more acute-care hospital beds per capita and fewer deaths related to surgical or medical mishaps. Britain achieves these results while spending proportionally less on health care than the U.S. - about $2,500 per person in Britain, compared with $6,000 in the U.S. For these reasons, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked Britain 18th in a global league table of health-care systems ( the U.S. was ranked 37th ). However, there are measures by which the U.S. outperforms Britain: for instance, the U.S. has lower cancer mortality rates". I hope this piques your interest. If so, please go to my post of Nov.10 at 6:34pm for the site with this complete article and a couple of other suggestions.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 11, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Like most developed countries, Britain ranks above the U.S. in most health measurements. Its citizens have a longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality, and the country has more acute-care hospital beds per capita and fewer deaths related to surgical or medical mishaps.
-----------------

Lets put the lower life expectancy and lower infant mortality myth to rest:

Socialized medicine does not achieve lower infant mortality rates than the U.S. What accounts for the bad statistics?

We count every live birth regardless of the baby's life expectancy. Under socialized systems such as in Canada and Germany (among many others), low birth weight infants under 500 grams (18 ounces), are not counted in the live-birth statistics.

Further, many socialized systems don't count babies who live less than a day. The Swedes don't count babies who are too short. We consider such infants worth saving and count them all, which lowers the statistical number for the survival rate.

Norway has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. The rates for the U.S. are just as good when adjusted for low birth weight.
---
"Mortality" measures the rate and cause of death. "Morbidity" measures the rate and cause of sickness. Many deaths are not caused by sickness, and populations have different rates and types of illness and consequent deaths. Mortality is a poor way to rate health care systems.

How are our health care statistics affected by the entry of often unhealthy immigrants? We would need a lot more information about this and many other factors to tell how much, if anything, the life expectancy numbers have to do with quality of health care.

For example, we learn from the CDC that 75% of more than 40,000 deaths each year, among persons aged 10-24 in the U.S., are related to motor-vehicle crashes (37%), homicide (14%), suicide (12%), and other injuries (drowning, poisoning, and burns - 12%). That is part of our culture, not a measure of our health care system.

Also according to the CDC, heart disease and cancer cause almost half of all deaths in the US. That does not indict the health care system. We spend enormous sums to research and treat these conditions, but because people will not stop smoking and start exercising, there is little that "the system" can do about it.

John Stossel (Why the U.S. Ranks Low on WHO's Health-Care Study) analyzes that life expectancy is a lousy measure of a health-care system. We have far more fatal transportation accidents than other countries. Our homicide rate is 10 times greater than in the U.K., eight times greater than in France, and five times greater than in Canada.

When you adjust for these "fatal injury" rates, U.S. life expectancy is actually higher than in nearly every other industrialized nation. That doesn't show a health-care problem.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 11, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; What about the rest of the report? You have signaled out life expectancy and infant mortality. You only mentioned Britain concerning the homicide rate. You are sending up a smoke screen and smothering people with statistics. It is rather amusing how the stats you use are always unbiased and unprejudiced, but when the same tactics are used to refute your outlook, then, that is another story. Noesis, you are deceiving yourself. May I offer a quote from G.K. Chesterton, who as a political thinker, cast aspersions on both liberalism and conservatism, saying: "The whole world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected".

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 11, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; As a PS: I think our confidence would be better placed on the World Health Organization than on John Stossel. I invite anyone interested to do a search for him on Wikipedia.

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers, sorry bud, you're using a typical liberal tactic of "smearing the messenger". Nice try but that doesn't cut it. Are you saying that John Stossel lies that other countries don't count low birth rates? Or that our murder rates are 10 times higher than England?

You think that just because facts come from a source that shows that you don't know what you are talking about that you can just ignore them? People see common sense facts. People know that our country has a high obesity rate which lead to heart attacks... that isn't a function of our health care system. Neither are the young gang bangers that kill each other.

You are the one trying to blow smoke up people's (you know where) with your misleading statistics.

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 12, 2009 at 6:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; John Stossel, " Stossel argues that personal greed creates an incentive to work and innovate. He has also criticized government programs as inefficient, wasteful and harmful. Stossel opposes corporate welfare and bailouts. He opposes legal prohibitions against pornography, marijuana, gambling, ticked scalping, prostitution, homosexual activity, and assisted suicide, in addition to HIS SUPPORT FOR ALMOST ALL FORMS OF ABORTION IN THE U.S." And yes, Noesis, I think John Stossel has stated half truths to promote his own esteem and agenda. I would not be proud to associate my opinions with Mr. Stossel. Although, to be fair and honest, he does have some intelligent opinions, in particular on Education. Noesis, my name is John Michael Akers, not bud. If you are proud and stand behind your opinions, may I inquire as to your name? Noesis, did you take notice of my quote from G.K. Chesterton?

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 12, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mickakers, who cares what views John Stossel has? Facts are facts! If John Stossel says that the Moon circles the earth, would you start arguing against his views just because you disagree with them?

Are you saying that we don't have a higher incidence of death due to heart attack than other countries because a lot of population is obese? Or we don't have a higher murder rate than other countries that lower the average life expectancy? Stick to the facts and quit trying to smear somebody just because you don't agree with his viewpoints.

As far as my name, I'm keeping that private. Neo has threatened many times to call my work and complain that I have used the puter on company time. He doesn't like the fact that I know his real name and history (he's threatened to sic his lawyers on me if I tell what I know).

Posted by mickakers (John Michael Akers) on November 12, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Noesis; I would like to thank you for your views and thoughts. With your posts and comments you have stimulated my interest and thinking process (also increased my blood pressure). I always look forward to your comments (not necessarily agree with them). We both have our country and its peoples best interest at heart. With God's help, may we come to the correct decisions. The best to you and your family.

Mick

Posted by Noesis (anonymous) on November 13, 2009 at 5:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mick, the same to you. I know what's in your heart is good, it's just that I've seen government program after government program fail to do what it was supposed to. Social Security was supposed to put the money we gave it into a trust fund... except they spent it all. Medicaid was projected to cost $9 billion a year by 2011. Now it's up to $64 billion. Our utilities/ utility users (you and I) have been paying extra on our utility bills to fund a nuclear disposal site. The total paid was over $35 billion dollars after Congress mandated that we be charged and a site be built by 2005. No site has been built... The list goes on and on...