The Obama Birth Certificate Issue

There's an American Thinker post up on the Obama birth certificate issue. You can read it for yourself. I'll say here what I said in email to the individual who sent me the link.

No sitting judge and not even the Supreme Court will reverse an election on a technicality, particularly as his Mother was undoubtedly an American citizen. So it is a moot point. I prefer fighting battles that can be won, rather than ones which can be used to marginalize the Right.

I'll also add that I can see why some might disagree, perhaps too much so fueled by anger at the amount of documentation of his past Obama has withheld from public view.

But now he is the President. I believe no one, not even the great Obama can appreciate what a meat grinder that job is unless or until you are sitting in the chair. It reveals everything about a person, as well as aging them beyond their years.

What we don't know of Obama we will soon find out. If there are flaws that make him bad for the nation, America will discover it and toss him out in four years.

It's time to prepare to engage that process and not fight losing battles to have it reversed.

Comments

[Sailor]

Most of the time I agree with you but not this time. There is too much that we do not know about Obama. It's time he cough up some facts about his past.

[Obama debunked]

What do your consider the 'technicality'? The US Constitution? That document that our forefathers bled and died for? That document that keeps us free from someone with allegiance to another country taking power over the US? The Law of the Land?

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. Citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. Citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. For the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. To transmit U.S. Citizenship to the child.

Source;http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.HTML

Obama's mother was 18 and unable to pass on her citizenship to BO no matter where he was born!
Source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

I guess we will see how much the Constitution means to the 9 Judges of the Supreme Court come Friday. You have to question yourself though as to WHY BO has spent over $500,000 dollars to dismiss a document that he could have paid $12 to end all of this speculation? There must be SOMETHING on there he doesn't want the American people to see wouldn't you say?

He is definitely hiding something if not, EVERYTHING, about his life!! Transparency my a**!!!

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

"I prefer fighting battles that can be won, rather than ones which can be used to marginalize the Right."

And ... FAIL.

I hope you idiots spend the next 4 years litigating the typeface on Obama's birth certificate.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- What we don't know of Obama we will soon find out. If there are flaws that make him bad for the nation, America will discover it and toss him out in four years. --"

Heh. Or not. America reelected Bush, after all.

"-- I hope you idiots spend the next 4 years litigating the typeface on Obama's birth certificate. --"

Cheers to that!
Hey, hey, did you guys hear? Barack Obama may secretly be the love child of Malcolm X!
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/10/how-could-stanl.html

Wingnuts investigators assemble! Keep reaching into Obama's past. By any means necessary!

Lols.

[Anon]

This kind of stuff is exactly why the GOP is in tatters...the birth certificate is a non starter, if there was anything to it, it would already have been outed.

The GOP has got to get off the culture war issues...those worked okay when people were feeling secure and the entire country was on a credit card crap products from China binge...

Now that people are scared of losing their jobs and their homes stamping out abortion or gay marriage or assisted suicide are not that important...THIS is why the Dems message resonated with people...everybody is nervous so the idea that everybody might get a handout from the government sounds great to the weak minded country we've become.

If the GOP doesn't get back on message and that includes ending its love affair with 'free trade' that trades American manifactured goods, jobs and taxes for crap from China then they're going to be out of power for a long, long time.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

I also heard that the Michelle Obama "whitey" tape will be produced in time to prevent Barack Hussein Obama from stealing the presidency. WOLVERINES!!!!

[fdc]

hahaha good luck with this
your base has destroyed your party
PALIN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Anon is correct. The GOP, however, will ignore his reasoning because it has made its bed with the anti-science, anti-progress, anti-reason crowd. The Malkins and Dobsons control a strong plurality of the party, and those people will never give up the culture war. Ever.

[Miklo]

Uh...

1.) The US Constitution is not a "technicality".

2.) Does being born in Kenya make him a bad person?No. Does being disingenuous about who you are and where you are from raise a big red flag? YES.

[templar knight]

Yeah, Total Dumbass, the Lefty queers apparently won't give up the culture wars, but that's okay, I suppose. Getting those queers married, now that's science, reason and progress all rolled into one, and solves all the economic problems in one fell swoop, no doubt. Do you ever think about the crap you post? Don't answer that. It might be a trick question.

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

And right on cue, tk comes along and neatly proves my point.

[anon]

There is nothing wrong w/being against gay marriage or for it, the mistake the GOP made was to replace all of its traditional philosophies--low taxes, small government, personal responsibility--with the culture war issues. The party abandoned ALL of its traditional lynchpins and went with only the socially conservative hot button issues. That was stupid. These issues should have always been second tier issues.

It is totally idiotic that a staunch small government/personal responsibility, low tax advocate basically has no place in the national GOP today unless he/she is also anti abortion, against gay marriage and against birth control access for everyone other than married couples.

These priorities are backwards in my opinion.

[GSD]

After 8 years of Bush signing statements, of eviscerating habeus corpus, ending posse comitatus, ignoring subpeonas and making a general mockery of the limited power of an elected leader set forth by the framers of the constitution, the wingnuts are NOW upset about violations of the US Constitution.

Today's GOP is funnier than George Carlin on the 70's.

-GSD

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

Again, Anon exudes reasonableness. I disagree that the GOP would be successful with its "traditional lynchpin" issues, or that it will be successful in the future. I believe that the results of traditional conservative policies have failed. I could be wrong about their efficacy in the future. But in the end, I don't think most people are on board with traditional conservatism because ultimately it hasn't worked for most people. While it is true that conservative economic policies tend to create more millionaires, MOST PEOPLE, in the aggregate, tend to do better under so-called "liberal" economic policies. Such might not jive with how conseravatives believe the US SHOULD be, but such is the case regardless. Americans are not concerned with ideology any longer.

In any event, if conservatives adapt themselves to the reality seen by most Americans, they can compete. If they help find solutions to the problems faced by most Americans, they will be rewarded; if not, they will continue to be rejected. In a way, this reality is perfect for Americans because if the GOP looks for solutions (and yes solutions can be found in the market) and helps out, we will all be better off. If they obstruct, the Dems will reap the benefit and implement their agenda.

[Anon]

I have to disagree that most people are better served by 'liberal' policies. The poor are better served by liberal policies because they are given something for nothing. The major lesson of the 1960s-1980s and beyond is that most liberal policies don't work. Focusing on self esteem instead of homework and discipline has sent the U.S. education system to the bottom of the developed world. Focusing only on the benefits and entitlements of "workers" is what sent all the jobs overseas in the first place. Focusing on "helping" the poor with huge welfare checks is what perpetuated the intergenerational welfare class to begin with. Most of the liberal agenda has been a huge failure because--like the conservatives--they lost the center and let their own wingnuts take over.

But, you must remember George Bush is no conservative. He's an ideological, anti intellectual individual who suffers from the emperor's new clothes syndrome and refuses to hear or believe anything that doesn't square with what he already believes.

Similarly, the Republican Controlled Congress from 2000-2006 in no way resembled a traditional conservative group. They spent, and they spent and did so recklessly. The created huge new government enterprises with no oversight. They invested in pet projects with no proven value.

If Obama adopts a truly "liberal" governing standard and he punishes the successful sectors wtih draconian taxes and rewards the people and sectors that have failed through their own bad judgment then what is left of the economy will be devastated. If he created one massive federal program after another, more inefficiencies, overuns and failures will ensue. By my reckoning the last new government program that was a success was the NASA moon launch, almost 40 years ago.

Another problem wtih the GOP is that they--like the liberal wing of the Democratic party--abandoned all reason and sense of scale in their adherence to 'low regulation' and 'free market' principles.

There is a big difference between reasonable, low, streamlined regulation and the free for all that we have seen in the financial sector and there is a difference between 'free trade' and wholesale abandonment of your own manifacturing sector and working collar citizens.

Historically, whomever has come closest to this center and above all pragmatic position has been rewarded.

[Fred Beloit]

God Save the Dopes (GSD) writes: "After 8 years of Bush signing statements, of eviscerating habeus[sic] corpus, ending posse comitatus[sic], ignoring subpeonas[sic] and making a general mockery of the limited power of an elected leader set forth by the framers of the constitution, the wingnuts are NOW upset about violations of the US Constitution.
Today's GOP is funnier than George Carlin on the 70's.
-GSD

First, not everyone thinks Carlin was funny. Second, none of what you claim in this silly comment is true. None of it is true, liar, liar, draft card on fire.

[mark l.]

this is actually a states rights issue.
hawaii accepts the authenticity of the birth certificate, case closed.

no group of conservative justices on the sc is going to challenge the veracity of any individual state, without the state itself requesting clarification.

[Scrapiron]

I see BDS is alive and well. The shrinks are in line to make billions off the crazy left/democrats and the fact is they know they can, and are making plans to become 'richer'.

[mark l.]

"The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, conducted by telephone on Dec. 1-2 with nearly 1,100 people, showed that 61% of those surveyed oppose government assistance for the major U.S. automakers."

http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/03/news/economy/automakers_poll/?postversion=2008120312

It would seem that we are about to test the resolve of the blue dogs in the next two months. Lose the vote and the dems are revealed as toothless. Win the vote and agitate 61% of the country. Go nancy, go...

heads the gop wins, tails the dems lose.

cannot wait to see the polling on any universal healthcare plan.

[jim]

"I prefer fighting battles that can be won, rather than ones which can be used to marginalize the Right."

Uh HUH.

How's that Operation Leper thing working for you?

Seems the GOP doesn't need much outside help when it comes to marginalization - not when it's convinced that it's still 1982, or that Bush didn't cripple the party for many years to come with his anti-constitutionalist realpolitik, cronyism & advocacy of lovely things like wars of aggression & torture.

Lose the lunatic-fringe platform & you've got a chance to rebuild - maybe even as early as 2012 or 2016. Keep it & watch your party splinter into total irrelevance. It's your call.

One party in the US consistently produces massive budget deficits via VERY liberal government spending combined with tax-cuts for those who now own the vast majority of the nation's wealth, & one party consistently practises REAL conservative fiscal policy that results in budget surpluses. Connect the dots - if you dare.

"If the GOP doesn't get back on message and that includes ending its love affair with 'free trade' that trades American manifactured(sic) goods, jobs and taxes for crap from China ..."

FAIL.

Bush's massive bailouts amount to heavy-duty protectionism, & are seen as such globally. Pay your workers better & institute cheaper universal health-care, & they won't be forced to bargain-hunt for "crap from China" just to keep food on the table & a roof over their heads - & you won't have quite as disgraceful a level of infant mortality either.

As long as the GOP keeps going after the same old identity politics schtick, along with insanity like lobbying for a mandatory 4% of GDP going to an already obscenely bloated Pentagon, it's going to be an opposition party for a very very long time.

[Anon]

Heavy duty protectionism? Now that is funny.

Both parties have been on the globalization bandwagon for quite some time because when your society is based on consuming goods the cheaper they are the better.

You have it backwards...consumers weren't "forced" to bargain hunt, companies made the decision to move production offshore where it would be cheaper, products became cheaper, the cheaper it is, the bigger the mass market...and nobody cared about the huge import/expert imbalance when we started buying everything from the Chinese.

It was all good...everything was cheap so everyone bought the cheap crap, credit was also cheap, further motivating our country of morons to continue to go into debt for cheap toxic crap from China.

This isn't George W. Bush's fault, it is the fault of the entire power structure..Republicans and Democrats...don't forget NAFTA and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it never created....

[jharp]

cannot wait to see the polling on any universal healthcare plan.

Posted by: mark l. | Wednesday, December 03, 2008 at 01:15 PM

We just had a poll on November 4th. And with Obama's health care proposal in plain sight for all to see.

The results were 54% to 47%.

But I'm sure you can find some kind of polling error with you being the polling expert and all.

[mark l.]

"you won't have quite as disgraceful a level of infant mortality either."

there are lies, damn lies, and statistics...

"If a child in Hong Kong or Japan is born alive but dies within the first 24 hours of birth, he or she is reported as a “miscarriage” and does not affect the country’s reported infant mortality rates."

"The length of pregnancy considered “normal” is 37-41 weeks. In Belgium and France — in fact, in most European Union countries — any baby born before 26 weeks gestation is not considered alive and therefore does not “count” against reported infant mortality rates."

"In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates."

"Norway boasts one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world. But when the main determinant of mortality — weight at birth — is factored in, Norway has no better survival rates than the United States."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-doctor-is-in-infant-mortality-comparisons-a-statistical-miscarriage/2/

"We just had a poll on November 4th. And with Obama's health care proposal in plain sight for all to see."

only if it was the exclusive reason for the results.

the inherent problem with creating universal healthcare is that you must 'destroy' the existing system. Considering most americans have healthcare and would view any decline in quality of service or increase in cost as intolerable, I invite obama to revisit the very mistake that clinton made in 94, which devastated the democratic party for 12 to 14 years.

everyone wants universal healthcare, but their willingness to suffer the consequences to their existing schemes is not a tenable position.

the reality is that if there is to be a universal healthcare plan, it will almost exculsively have to entail a socialized element, where the poor recieve lower quality care. If you create a system where healthcare is equivalent for all, you merely lower the bar for everyone...

[templar knight]

Yeah, jharp, and there was a poll just like the one you refer to in 1992, and health care reform went nowhere then. Mayhap there will be reform, but not the kind that is needed, nor desired by most, would be my guess. We shall see. My guess is that Obama will have a hell of a time just keeping the country going next year.

There is about to be a huge spike in crime, food and housing shortages are possible, and our enemies, the good freinds of the Leftists, are sure to attack as soon as possible. After the recent events in Mumbai, anything along those lines has to be considered a real possibility, and we'll be lucky not to be hit with WMD in one of our major cities, which is the best reason I know to NOT live in one of them. Well, second best, as the best reason is that you don't have to be around the filthy liberals and their minions who congregate in our large cities.

[templar knight]

Mark, don't confuse these idiots with facts. Hell, they have their feelings to tell them what must be done, whether it be possible or not.

[jharp]

mark l,

You know less about health care than you do polling.

29 out of the 30 industrialized countries in the world use some sort of a single payer system.

The U.S. is the only one that doesn't. And health care costs in the U.S. are generally about twice what the rest of the word pays for the same quality of care.

And you are full of shit with your pajamas media link. They are right wing hacks. Infant mortality rates in the U.S. compare unfavourably with countries that spend half of what we spend.

And please cut the stupidity of calling it socialized medicine. Are you such a birdbrain that you don't even understand what socialized medicine means?

[Ozwitch]

"I prefer fighting battles that can be won, rather than ones which can be used to marginalize the Right."

To coin a movie, you should fight the battles that need to be fought, not just the ones that are a slam dunk in the victory column. Don't think like a politician. Think like an American citizen.

And it was a leftwing fantasy movie at that. Shame.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- there are lies, damn lies, and statistics... --"

Until you aggregate your numbers by the WHO definition of infant mortality and live birth. At which point you are left with only statistics. And the US is still in the middle of the pack regarding infant mortality.

Of course, as TK likes to point out, idiots get confused by facts.

Remember back in September when McCain was claiming the fundamentals of the economy were strong? Or the last three times Bush Co had announced that we had "won" in Iraq?

If only we'd listened to conservatives claiming the DOW would peak at 16k! http://wallstreetblips.dailyradar.com/video/peter_schiff_was_right_2006_2007_2nd_edition/

I mean, if the GOPer crew can be this right on the economy, how can they fail us on calculating infant mortality rates?!

Where do we rank in infant mortality, Mark I? I never actually hear a straight answer on that. Only the belabored claim that "all other sources are wrong".

[Dan Riehl]

No less an "authority" than Harry Reid is already on record as saying health care reform will not be on the table this Congress. They may toss a bone to the Left with something. But with the Senate lacking the votes and will to address it - ain't gonna happen.

You really think the folks in DC want many people talking about the care they get themselves and would continue to while most of Americans have their care watered down?

Ain't. Gonna. Happen.

They'd need even more health care after the bloodbath in two years.

[mark l.]

It's like telling a kid not to run with scissors (in their mouth), despite the child bearing a massive scar from previous 'running with scissors' incidents. There is a small element of pity, but a massive amount of desire to see darwinism take effect...

if it isn't fit to survive, it won't.

Is it an impossible task? no, a strong second term would provide for such conditions, but to do it now, would be the tragedy of Sisyphus. Obama is not currently in the position to have the strength to push any big rock up a hill. In time, given the vicissitudes of the economy, he might reach that point. Had clinton waited to go with healthcare, he doesn't get crushed in 94, the gop never gets the majority, and he makes the move to universal healthcare as part of his 96 term, and given the amount of revenue rolling in at the time, he probably would have pulled it off.

healthcare, at the moment, is the arrow of mistletoe for obama.

[Dan Riehl]

"you should fight the battles that need to be fought,"

I'm not saying don't fight it, merely pointing out politics is not the forum to fight religious fights. Republicans had control for years, nothing changed much regarding the law. Here's a quote - you can't legislate morality.

[mark l.]

"Of course, as TK likes to point out, idiots get confused by facts."

I just provided you with a list, and rather than address or discount any of them, you dance off like a homosexual bi-polar ballerina in the height of his mania.

are any of the statements provided incorrect?

[jharp]

Our rank in infant mortality. Hint. There are 41 countries that fare better than us. And they are the same ones that spend half of what we spend on health care.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

And by the way an excellent reference site. I recommend it to all.

[mark l.]

"29 out of the 30 industrialized countries in the world use some sort of a single payer system."

which of the 29 have fully funded it and are incurring no exponentially growing debt? universal healthcare is easy...funding it is not. We have over 50 trillion hole in outstanding obligations which will be due in thirty years, with no real way of paying for it. Why not just make it 75 trillion in unfunded obligations?

"And please cut the stupidity of calling it socialized medicine. Are you such a birdbrain that you don't even understand what socialized medicine means?"

http://www.answers.com/topic/publicly-funded-medicine

'socialized medicine'
"A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation."

[jharp]

Here are the infant mortality rates from the CIA.gov World Fact Book.

181 United States 6.30
182 Cuba 5.93 .
183 Isle of Man 5.62
184 Italy 5.61
185 Taiwan 5.45 .
186 San Marino 5.44 .
187 Greece 5.25 .
188 Monaco 5.18 .
189 Ireland 5.14 .
190 Canada 5.08 .
191 Jersey 5.01 .
192 New Zealand 4.99
193 United Kingdom 4.93 .
194 Gibraltar 4.91
195 Portugal 4.85
196 Australia 4.82
197 Netherlands 4.81 .
198 Luxembourg 4.62 .
199 Guernsey 4.53 .
200 Liechtenstein 4.52 .
201 Belgium 4.50 .
202 Austria 4.48 .
203 Denmark 4.40 .
204 Slovenia 4.30 .
205 Korea, South 4.29
206 Israel 4.28 .
207 Spain 4.26
208 Switzerland 4.23 .
209 Germany 4.03 .
210 Czech Republic 3.83
211 Malta 3.79 .
212 Andorra 3.68
213 Norway 3.61
214 Anguilla 3.54 .
215 Finland 3.50 .
216 France 3.36
217 Iceland 3.25 .
218 Macau 3.23 .
219 Hong Kong 2.93 .
220 Japan 2.80
221 Sweden 2.75 .
222 Singapore 2.30

Shall we move on to life expectancy comparisons?

[jharp]

'socialized medicine'
"A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation."

Posted by: mark l. | Wednesday, December 03, 2008 at 04:48 PM

You truly are a friggin birdbrain. No one is or has proposed any such thing.

Go read Obama's proposal and cut out the ignorance.

[mark l.]

"Remember back in September when McCain was claiming the fundamentals of the economy were strong?"

political stupidity, but econmically accurate.

In September 09, a year after this statement, we will be emerging from recession. It doesn't happen that fast unless the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

[jharp]

Shall we move on to life expectancy comparisons?

Here it is. We rank 46th. Again losing to countries that spend half of what we spend.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html

[Anon]

Why do you think that universal health care is going to make the per capita cost of health care go down?

How is that going to work? We spend X dollars now on health care and there are 40 million uninsured. The rational thing would be to assume that something close to X dollars would be added for each of those 40 million which will mean the US will still have the most expensive health care in the world by an even larger margin.

OR....a sizable majority of the people who currently have health care are going to have to either pay more for it out of their own pocket [sapping more of their income], or they are going to pay the same or pay less and get significantly less levels of care...which is not going to make them very happy or make universal health care at all popular with those who already have health care.

OR...the government is going to completely trash the current system, muscle out the insurance companies and drastically cut payments to doctors and hospitals for every single kind of procedure...this would indeed be significantly cheaper than what we do now, but it will happen when pigs fly.

So, I will ask you again, how is universal health care...extending health benefits to millions that don't have them now via government funding...going to DECREASE the overall cost of US healthcare????

[jharp]

"Why do you think that universal health care is going to make the per capita cost of health care go down?"

My short answer is because 29 out the 30 industrialized countries that use some form of single payer cover everyone, at the same level of care, for about half the cost.

If you need more please ask.

[mark l.]

would you honestly rather have any of those countries deliver your kid? which ones? seriously...

on a lighter note, I found the video of pelosi, schumer, frank, et al. celebrating the majority.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPiOxFijxCs

[anon]

Here is his plan, which he says now will cost at least $50 billion a year! Usually politicians either over or under estimate so we can reasonably guess it will cost at least $70 billion a year.

How will he fund it? From "savings" he finds in the system and a repeal of the Bush tax cuts. [That's funny, he's not going to find that much savings and given the economy it is highly doubtful he's going to get as much new tax revenue from "the rich" as he thinks.

Let's look at the rest of it.

Establishing a new public program that would look a lot like Medicare for those under age-65 that would be available to those who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would also be open to small employers who do not offer a private plan.

[In other words, a huge expansion of an already inefficient gov. run program].

* Creating a “National Health Insurance Exchange.” This would be a government-run marketing organization that would sell insurance plans directly to those who did not have an employer plan or public coverage.

[Oh boy, now the gov. is in the insurance business, more bureaucracy]

* An employer “pay or play” provision that would require an employer to either provide health insurance or contribute toward the cost of a public plan.

[This seems fairly sensible depending on how much a small business that can't afford to offer health care would have to pay, it might be fair or might kill off these businesses and induce them to fire more employees]

* Mandating that families cover all children through either a private or public health insurance plan.

[stupid]

* Expanding eligibility for government programs, like Medicaid and SCHIP.

[Ah, more government programs again]

* Allow flexibility in embracing state health reform initiatives.

[meaningless]

So, to boil it all down, he's going to be spending at least $50 billion a year via a massive expansion of the federal government's already unweildy and inefficient medical bureaucracy].

Funny, I must have missed that list of specifics where he's going to SAVE MONEY.

Oh my god, I can't believe anyone really thinks this is anything other than a disaster waiting to happen.

[jharp]

"would you honestly rather have any of those countries deliver your kid? which ones? seriously..."

Rather? Let me put it this way. Since I live in the U.S. I'd prefer not traveling out of the country to have my child delivered.

And I'd have no problem at all if I lived or happened to be in one of the countries with a lower infant mortality rate in having my child delivered there.

[anon]

Furthermore, the ONLY WAY to reduce costs is to find a way to pay doctors and hospitals less. That's it. Everything else is a lie.

Better preventive care makes it cheaper in the long run. Nice idea and in supremely limited cases it makes sense, but if you have cancer or heart disease, catching it early doesn't really change the cost of long term treatment and overwhelminly the cost of health care is END OF LIFE costs.

New technology isn't going to cut it, preventative care will do virtually nothing to reduce costs, and all insurance really does for the uninsured is shift the cost from the ER to the doctor's office, the "cost" itself doesn't go away, though again there may be marginal savings in having your broken toe treated at the docs office and not the ER.

When you compare European models to the U.S. you are comparing apples and oranges. You don't even know what you are talking about with all this single payer nonsense since that isn't even what Obama is proposing..he's proposing that we keep all the existing private insurance and enhance it with more gov. programs.

Math is math, you can't add 40 million people to something and have it end up costing less unless you significantly alter the "something" that they are getting.

So, as I suspected, after reviewing Obama's alleged masterplan it is exactly the piece of sh*t I thought it was all along and you are totally naive, as I have known all along, in believing that Obama has somehow created a magic bullet here that is going to simultaneously reduce costs and add millions to the rolls.

Ain't going to happen. It will be just like Bush's idiotic prescription drug plan...it will cost billions more than anyone admits and will do much, much less than promised and do that badly.

Hilarious.

[mark l.]

"'socialized medicine'
"A government-regulated system for providing health care for all by means of subsidies derived from taxation."

Posted by: mark l. | Wednesday, December 03, 2008 at 04:48 PM

You truly are a friggin birdbrain. No one is or has proposed any such thing."

we currently provide healthcare for those over 65, those under 18, and those who disabled, and those that fall below the poverty line.

we already are a socialized system. You are absolutely ignorant to not understand this.

"Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the states and federal government, and is managed by the states.[1] Among the groups of people served by Medicaid are eligible low-income parents, children, seniors, and people with disabilities. Being poor, or even very poor, does not necessarily qualify an individual for Medicaid.[2] Indeed, it is estimated that approximately 60 percent of poor Americans are not covered by Medicaid.[3] Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the US."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria. It was originally signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony President Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

jharp? more like f-tard.

[jharp]

"Furthermore, the ONLY WAY to reduce costs is to find a way to pay doctors and hospitals less. That's it. Everything else is a lie."

You are completely full of shit. And ignorant.

Kindly explain how the rest of world covers everyone, at the same level of care, for half.

[jharp]

Finally, mark l has made some sense.

And you are right medicare and medicaid are a taxpayer paid for insurance.

However you again miss the point. No one is proposing many changes to either.

It's the rest of us. Nitwit.

[Anon]

Poor little jharp, you're throwing around words and terms and you don't even know what they mean. You've been babbling about a single payer system except that IS NOT WHAT OBAMA has proposed.

I am not full of shit, I am 100% correct and if you spent even 10 minutes using google if you have even half a brain it would be obvious that everything I said is absolutely correct.

Your problem is that you don't really know what you are talking about, you don't know anything about the European models and how they differ from this country, you don't even know anything about Obama's proposal and you sure as hell do not know anything about how health care is delivered.

All you know is that 'universal health care' sounds like a worthy cause and you are all for it and if someone tells you it can be done like magic, with no pain and no expense you're all board.

I think they call that a 'low information voter' these days.

[mark l.]

"And you are right medicare and medicaid are a taxpayer paid for insurance."

they are not insurance. they are actual services which we pay for (by borrowing money).

[jharp]

"You've been babbling about a single payer system except that IS NOT WHAT OBAMA has proposed."

I am aware of that and have posted it here several times.

And just to be clear I favor a single payer.

"I am 100% correct and if you spent even 10 minutes using google"

Let's see your data.

"Furthermore, the ONLY WAY to reduce costs is to find a way to pay doctors and hospitals less. That's it. Everything else is a lie."

And statements like this is what I base my claim you are full of shit and ignorant. And I stand by my words.