patrick.net

The people regulates the government through elections. That is at least the way it is supposed to work. Instead we have corporations regulating the government through monetary donations.

The semantics of semantics. Drfelle exclaimed: >> Semantics! A few weeks ago, Elliemae said (and it stuck in my head) >> Nah, they’re busy slinging names, blaming it on the libs and delving into semantics. At the time. I did not understand what she meant by the expression "delving into semantics." You could say, I did not understand the semantics (==meaning) of the expression. Now I think I do. But it bothers me. The implication is that "semantics", or understanding the meaning or definition of words and concepts, is somehow a contemptible game. Well, it only is if you make it so. I think we should not accuse someone of "semantics" when we are really accusing them of "playing a semantic *game*" of distorting the meaning of a concept. And please, no meta-semantic games about semantics now....

SomeGuy, Haha, don't you understand that you need to be a mind-reader, and the correct answer is either "Tuscan" or "Local". As in: You: Do you want to go for some Local? GF: Uh, which one? You: ???? Or alternatively, you could play some semantic games with her: You: Do you want to go for some local? GF: Excellent idea! You: Ok, let's go to the Mexican one down the street GF: ????

>> and spend less time posting on Patrick.net; maybe then you’ll be able to afford health coverage. Look who's talking. It's always the right-wingers who wants *everyone else* to get off their fat lazy asses. 1/2 :-)

Some Guy, >>So my question is: What else ya got? You're a relative newbie, so you just walked right into that one :-) :-) Do a search on "election system" right here on patrick.net for the answer(*) In short: The problem is that our dysfunctional 2-party duopoly system is caused by our equally dysfunctional election system, which in practise permits only 2 parties to win elections, and hence no free market in political representation. We need to regulate the elections system to get a properly functioning democratic process. (*) Actually, Patrick, it seems that the Google search does not find all older post, or am I mistaken?

>> *chuckle* Me too. That was a classic. It's not a solution unless drfelle says so,

Some Guy says

Teddybearneil says

I am one of those who believe in the historic co-relation between household incomes and home prices. I have been watching with unconcealed glee as prices crashed and even managed to snag an REO in Texas in 2008. I now notice that Zestimates are starting to go up on ALL the properties that I have in my Zillow favorites. It would suggest to me that we have reached the bottom in housing! I am now scrambling to snag another property before the home prices start back up on their upward curve!!

Oooh, Zestimates. Yeah, those are really accurate…

I mean I would love for the home prices to crash further so that I can snag another property for pennies on the dollar..but thanks to the re-flation policies of the Fed/Treasury, it appears that a combination of low interest rates, plenty of loans being originated with only 3% down payment, banks NOT foreclosing on properties and the existing inventory of foreclosed properties pretty much cleared out, I don't see how and when prices will come down further. A bottom with a bounce as another wag suggested, is a possibility, but I am not betting on it. I am definitely going to buy a home if it gives me a monthly positive cash flow by renting it out!!

Patrick, Here's an example of a search term not found: I did a search on "Duverger", and it came up empty. But here's a post that contains the word: http://patrick.net/?p=548#comment-622769 Am I doing something wrong here?

SomeGuy, yes, I was being sarcastic/humorous, partly at my own expense. Humor alert: I think I know your girlfriend, too Or could there be more than one of them? Still more humor: >>Hint: Your sentence should start with “The solution is…”, as opposed to “The problem is…” Are we suddenly playing the game show Jeopardy now, where you do not get points unless you formulate the answer as a question. Jeepers.

>> I have health care….that I pay for….that I don’t bitch about. And therefore, if someone else does not, it must be their own fault?

That's a lot of if-if-if qualifiers there, Doctor Nixon ...

justme says

Well, it only is if you make it so. I think we should not accuse someone of “semantics” when we are really accusing them of “playing a semantic *game*” of distorting the meaning of a concept.

That's exactly my point when I complain about use of terms like "socialism" and "communism". There is a MASSIVE difference between a single-payer "insurance" system and what you might get out of a "socialist" system. When you start throwing around these terms, you're distorting the actual discussion about what is best for our country by bringing fear to the table. If you tell Joe six pack that a single payer system is communism, he's going to automatically reject it, without actually investigating what is being proposed and how it would work. There have been numerous studies that show that people are open to just about anything if you phrase it a certain way. Politicians know this all too well, and people like Karl Rove have made their entire careers on influencing opinion through selective language. drfelle says

If they’re paying for cable TV and INTERNET, eating out, paying for a mortgage they can’t afford, wearing designer clothing, buying Plasma’s/Blu-Rays, having kids out of wed-lock, financing a car, etc, etc, Then YES!

So your basic argument is that it's OK to overpay for health care because there is still a lot to sacrifice? Perhaps we should all live like serfs so that we can afford to pay the insurance companies whatever they ask? That's not a solution. A "solution" means coming up with the best way to reduce the crushing cost of health care on society as a whole. Health care costs have been growing at a rate more than double the general cost of living. That is not sustainable.

Tenpoundbass says

Creation or Evolution, it’s both human interpretation. Exactly how evolved or “Evolution works” for that matter. Is only speculation and theories at this point.

You do realize that a "theory" has actual scientific meaning, right? Saying that something is "only" a theory doesn't somehow denote the status of the research. The theory of Gravity is only a theory, too. That's the whole point of science. Being presented with facts and interpreting those facts. There are no "facts" in creationism -- it's not science, it is theology. Tenpoundbass says

There are Zealots in the Scientific community as any change to their Scientific religion is Heresy and to not believe or question is Blasphemy.

Oh please. There are no real scientists (you know, people with degrees and experience who perform scientific research) who do any such thing. The scientific method requires peer review and reproduction, which is something that global warming deniers, creationists, and people who believe that oil 'grows' out of the ground hate. If you believe that the prevailing scientific knowledge on a given subject is wrong, all you have to do is perform some research that contradicts the existing research. It isn't that hard to disprove something that is obviously wrong, but it's very hard to disprove something that is probably right (like gravity and evolution). I'll agree with the argument that science can and has been misinterpreted and misused, but that doesn't change the nature of the discovery process. As an example: Fact: The earth is getting hotter. Theories as to why: (Prevailing theory): Lots of evidence suggests that the earth is getting hotter because of increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Somewhat common) Valid, but less thoroughly researched evidence suggests that the warming may be caused by other effects than CO2, such as solar cycles and geothermal activity. So, yeah, it's absolutely possible for people who know the facts to continue doing research to try to determine whether the prevailing theory (which we can control) or the less-common theory (which we can't control) hold true. But it isn't "science" to just dismiss the basic fact of the earth getting hotter. That's like dismissing gravity because you don't like it when you fall on your ass. Tenpoundbass says

Religious nuts have always challenged Science, and Science has seemed to get along just fine. Why get in a pissing contest over climate change, evolution ect…

Because the creationists (like Sarah Palin) want to teach Creationism in school, and fill my children's head with nonsense about magical sky dwellers who created man out of some dust. If Sarah wants her kids to believe such stories, she's welcome to attend any church that she likes.

chrisborden says

How about teaching people to exercise, to stop eating corporate poison, to cook for themselves,

Absolutely. Guess what, though? Uneducated people lack the knowledge to make those decisions. If you want them to be able to make those intelligent decisions, you're going to have to provide them with a good education. The poverty / poor education cycle is vicious. The 'corporate poison' is another fun issue. How do you teach them not to eat it? If anyone tries to publish the evidence of how horrible this food is for you, they get sued by McDonald's and co. Hell, look at the food pyramid. It was written by the farm lobby, which is why it makes the completely outrageous claim that grains (you know, wheat, soy, and corn) should form the basis of our diet, and that meat is of equal importance as fruits and vegetables. That is so beyond unhealthy that it's almost criminal. How do you expect ordinary people to make good decisions about their health when they're being told that giving their kids white bread peanut butter and jelly sandwiches is healthy? Many other countries have addressed these problems by heavily regulating their food industries. I might get on board with that approach, but I doubt that the people who think that the current system works would be. Of course, that's not going to change the basic nature of health care. There is no free market when I get hit by a truck. "Personal responsibility" isn't involved when a building collapses on me.

stop taking drugs and drinking and smoking,

The government-funded anti-smoking campaign (surgeon general's warnings, high taxes on tobacco, and TRUTH ads more recently) have accomplished exactly that. Smoking rates in the US have fallen to less than 20% of their peak, all because the government stepped in and made people aware of just how bad smoking was for them. So that worked. Maybe soda should come with warning labels too (in some countries, it does).

stop vegetating in front of the idiot box, stop wanting to pop a pill for every perceived ailment,

How about banning the advertising of medication? "Ask your doctor about..." is just wrong. Your doctor should be the one telling you about a medication, not your television.

stop obsessing about being sick (you get what you THINK)? When we don’t need doctors, then they’ll just have to find something else to do. (Oh, pardon me for being so naive.)

We will always need doctors. What you're suggesting would certainly cut down on heart disease and some forms of cancer, but the big burdens would still be there. Is "personal responsibility" going to make bones stop breaking, the elderly stop aging, or anything else? And just SAYING "personal responsibility" is meaningless when you have a society that has been built up to cram bad ideas down everybody's throats. The free market has utterly failed at steering people towards healthy lifestyle habits, so the only option there is going to be even more government intervention. I am 100% in favor of changing behavior here. We need our school lunches to no longer include nachos and dr pepper. We need to make McDonald's cease to be the most popular resturaunt. We aren't going to do that when the food companies who make these terrible products have all the money and can skew perception all that they want.

Teddybearneil says

anks NOT foreclosing on properties and the existing inventory of foreclosed properties pretty much cleared out, I don’t see how and when prices will come down further.

Foreclosures in Silicon Valley continue to climb:

There were 591 foreclosures in Santa Clara County in June, up 22 percent compared with May, ForeclosureRadar, a Discovery Bay company that tracks California foreclosure activity, reported Tuesday. Foreclosures were up 63 percent in May from April. In a sign that the trend would continue, notices of default — the first step leading to foreclosure — rose by 11.5 percent. Foreclosure sales statewide jumped by 24.7 percent, the company said, marking the third consecutive month of increase following a moratorium pending announcement

Can anyone explain me how I can infer inventory of foreclosed properties will clear out soon?

I just heard this asshole radio anchor Bob brinker and a caller criticize public health plan. They were lamenting that if public health insurance how would "poor" private health insurance companies compete with the public plan. It is unbelievable how evil some people can get in this country. These same motherfuckers like bob brinkers of the world will have no issue when a private health insurance denies coverage to some cancer patient. After all to these insects in human form of the world think that health is also a matter of profit. Why these assholes don't demand that essential services like fire brigade and police also is privatized....

How would those poor private health insurance companies compete with the public plan? That would be horrible. As it is, the execs of those poor private companies are barely eeking by: The salaries of the highest paid health insurance CEOs: * Ron Williams – Aetna – Total Compensation: $24,300,112. * H. Edward Hanway – CIGNA – Total Compensation: $12,236,740. * Angela Braly – WellPoint – Total Compensation: $9,844,212. * Dale Wolf – Coventry Health Care – Total Compensation: $9,047,469. * Michael Neidorff – Centene – Total Compensation: $8,774,483. * James Carlson – AMERIGROUP – Total Compensation: $5,292,546. * Michael McCallister – Humana – Total Compensation: $4,764,309. * Jay Gellert – Health Net – Total Compensation: $4,425,355. * Richard Barasch – Universal American – Total Compensation: $3,503,702. * Stephen Hemsley – UnitedHealth Group – Total Compensation: $3,241,042. * Karen Ignagni, CEO America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) Total compensation: $1,580,000 Meanwhile, their customers' procedures are denied...

Another point we should look at when talking about health insurance... Has any one looked at how much money frivolous law suites are costing us? I think people have forgotten that when you are getting treated in the emergency room the doctor is doing what he can with the little time he has to save your life. There are laws that protect good samaritans and I think we need to have the same to protect doctors as well. People seem to think that if a doctor is unable to fix something or that there is a remote possibility that another doctor could have done better they should sue. A lot of money is spent on these cases which is why malpractice insurance is through the rough. Suing a doctor these days and making a mint seems to be the new way of obtaining the american dream. The ease in which one can sue a doctor ends up increasing the cost for everyone else to get treatment. I due not feel we should take away ones right to sue but must need to raise the bar on what constitutes wrong doing by someone who is trying to help you. I strongly believe that in order for someone to be able to sue against a doctor they must have a case that is strong enough to show gross negligence. For example in order to sue a doctor, that doctor must do something like used the wrong patient chart, or left a tool in you. I also think a neutral third party should be used to determine if a case is even worthy of going to trial before lawyers have to be brought in.

P2D2 says

Teddybearneil says

anks NOT foreclosing on properties and the existing inventory of foreclosed properties pretty much cleared out, I don’t see how and when prices will come down further.

Foreclosures in Silicon Valley continue to climb:

There were 591 foreclosures in Santa Clara County in June, up 22 percent compared with May, ForeclosureRadar, a Discovery Bay company that tracks California foreclosure activity, reported Tuesday. Foreclosures were up 63 percent in May from April. In a sign that the trend would continue, notices of default — the first step leading to foreclosure — rose by 11.5 percent. Foreclosure sales statewide jumped by 24.7 percent, the company said, marking the third consecutive month of increase following a moratorium pending announcement

Can anyone explain me how I can infer inventory of foreclosed properties will clear out soon?

Just because foreclosures are increasing does not mean inventory overall is going up. And if those foreclosures are selling faster than they come on the market, inventory will go down. In places that I've been watching, I know inventories are much lower right now than they were last year. I think in Fremont, CA there are actually about half the number of homes listed (around 500, down from over 1000). This is what bugs me and is causing me to have my doubts. Hopefully, it's just because of several things (CA moratorium, temp blip with spring/summer selling season, extremely low interest rates). I guess we'll see.

"liberal data" my ass What a jerk off you are, drfelle. Now you are plying semantic games with the data. Not that anyone should be surprised.

There is no ignore button. It would mean N x N possible relationships of ignoring, probably slowing down the site. On the other hand, maybe it would improve the user experience. Commenters who got ignored by pretty much everyone could just be put into some mode where they comment into the ether. On the third hand, it's character building to deal with difficult people. Not fun, but there's some real skill in doing it well. BTW, I'm a liberal, big time! But fiscally conservative.

chrisborden says

I do not go to the doctor because I keep myself healthy, and it is not in my best interest to waste $3000+ a year on “insurance” I will never use.

...which is all well and good when you are healthy. Now, what happens if you're born a diabetic? What if you get cancer? Nobody dies from "old age". We all die from some disease or physical trauma. Most of us will die from some form of cancer. Funnily enough, regular check ups are the best way to fight cancer (early detection almost always results in effective treatment, and late detection almost always results in death). I can not for the life of me figure out what kind of brain damage (probably not covered by insurance) is required to think that the current system is somehow as good as it can be, or that it's even rational to pay such ridiculously high prices for medical care. I don't really care if you're pro-single payer, pro-government option, pro-government ownership, or anything. There are plenty of other options with a lot less government involvement, and ALL OF THEM are better than what we do in the U.S.

Tenpoundbass says

Don’t confuse “Theory” and “Law”

Well, no, because scientists don't really use the term "Law" anymore. Newton called his reasonably-close approximations "Law", and then people with more knowledge came along and showed that Newton didn't get everything right. We still call some things "Laws" for historical reasons, but scientists learned long, long ago never to claim that anything is "absolute", even if it has been hundreds of years since any contrary evidence has been presented. So, yes, gravity is "just a theory" (albeit one without much contrary evidence). That's how science works. You learn something new, and that new evidence becomes the basis for your understanding of the universe. Tenpoundbass says

The same thing could be said about “String Theory”, “The Big Bang”, “theoretical physics” and “quantum mechanics”. It’s all Scientific “Bull Shit” no different than religious Bull shit. But in the spirit of education you tolerate or humor these views. As they often may expand your mind to see innovation in something you might have not seen otherwise.

Except every single one of those things is supported by scientific evidence, with thousands upon thousands of scientists researching them actively in order to attempt to refine the theories until we have exhausted the limits of human observation. Creationism is supported by some books written by crazy people (that the books refer to as "prophets"). I'm going to assume that you don't know the first thing about any of those topics if you call them "Bullshit" or claim that they're "no different" from religion. Putting quantum mechanics into the same realm as String theory in terms of scientific evidence is absurd (not that there's anything terribly wrong with string theory, it's just that quantum mechanics is a far more thoroughly researced arena), and I don't even know what that "theoretical physics" thing is supposed to be. All physics are "theoretical". Sounds like pseudo-science to me. You have no idea what you're talking about. Tenpoundbass says

Surely you don’t have a problem with Greek or Mayan mythology? One mans mythology is another mans religion.

In a theology, mythology or maybe even a history class, I have no problem with that at all. We should absolutely be teaching our children about the world's religions and what people who follow those religions believe -- but it is NOT science. The difference between science and religion is this: - In science, you perform research in order to explain the world. As you learn more from your research, your understanding of the world around you grows. - In religion, you accept some collection of stories and /or people as infallible truth. You do not investigate or learn about the world around you, because all truths are laid out by the religion. There are certainly scientists who are also religious, but there aren't very many credible scientists who are Creationists.

drfelle, not all people have opinions that are derived from some media outlet or other. It is true that too many have, and given the enormous pseudo-conservative slant of the media since _forever_, the results are appalling and the misconceptions are astoundingly severe.

TOB, >> ..., or pro peace and have zero problems with producing litters of illegitimate children, well known to be the primary cause of crime and social unrest. Uh, you should have watched the program "Lost Royals" on PBS last night. I think the real title of the British program was "Royal Bastards" (a term which was used, uh, liberally, during the program), but of course that title was a little too pointed for the local sensibilities. Anyway, the point I'm making is that War and Crime has more likely been the result of the bastard children of Kings and Nobility, if at all (and that would include the elite on Wall St here in the US, by extension).

SomeGuy, You did in some sense clarify what you mean by "socialist" (somewhere above) by writing the sentence: >>That ASPECT of the government would be a socialist one. I agree with what Kevin is saying about how the term socialism and socialist is being abused. It is counterproductive to claim that an aspect /program/action/policy/law/whatever of a state/country is "socialist", especially when there are plenty of non-socialist countries that have similar or identical programs. For example, Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939 under false pretenses. And the US invaded Iraq in 2001 under equally false pretenses. Does that USA make a Nazi nation? Well, as you know, not exactly. I have to disagree with labeling of government programs as "socialist". I think it is just a smear tactic, and should be avoided.

Bap33, >>but the Army is not for profit … LOL, tell that to Haliburton.

drfelle says

elliemae says

How would those poor private health insurance companies compete with the public plan? That would be horrible. As it is, the execs of those poor private companies are barely eeking by:

Once the dust settles and there is still no OBAMA Health Care Plan…. Homeless Man: How is ellimae going to be able to afford Health Coverage with her $35-$75K salary? drfelle: It looks like she might have to downgrade to Basic Cable. Homeless Man: Oh no, that’s horrible! drfelle: yeah, and she might have to rid herself of a huge car payment. Homeless Man: Does that mean she’ll have to walk like me? drfelle: No, elliemae has more than one vehicle. Homeless Man: Why does she need more than one vehicle? drfelle: It’s a long story. She, and many others that can’t afford Health Coverage have a spending problem. Homeless Man: Why doesn’t she learn to save? drfelle: She feels entitled to steal from the most successful (wealthy) citizens. She doesn’t need to save. Homeless Man: But haven’t the successful citizens earned their money through hard work? drfelle: Yes, but people like elliemae are Prideful, and can’t stand the success of others. Homeless Man: Isn’t being Prideful a sin. drfelle: yes. Homeless Man: Wait, if elliemae is entitled to the money of people who are wealthier than her, then I must be entitled to her money!!!! drfelle: sigh! Wealth IS relative!

I really want some of what you're smoking.

But haven’t the successful citizens earned their money through hard work?

Of course. The hardest workers are always the ones who enjoy the most wealth. Wealth is rarely if ever accumulated through exploitation, fraud, larceny, nepotism or luck.

Do other countries have nationalized health care that covers everyone? Yes. Do they pay for it? Yes. Are the populations of these countries wandering the streets dying of disease. No. Are we in the USA so stupidly incompetent that we can't do that too without bankrupting our populace or creating a rationing worse than that created by private insurers? That, apparently, is what's being argued by the conservative members of this forum.

ian807 says

Are the populations of these countries wandering the streets dying of disease. No.

Umm, wow....Where did that fact come from. I would argue that in every country there are going to be people are wondering the streets dying of diseases because almost every one will get one at one point or another. I would feal that by being in the US will currently get me faster and better treatment then what I would get in one of the countries with nationalized healthcare plan in place. The US system needs to be fixed, but I do not think handing it over to the government is the solution. d3 - aka knightparzival

Tenpoundbass says

d3 says

The US system needs to be fixed, but I do not think handing it over to the government is the solution.

Wow, um if not the Government to take the task then who would fix it. Those making a killing on the system now?

Just because I don't let the government run healthcare, does not imply that we have to keep things the way they are. I would be fine with the government helping to subsidize the cost or preventative care and emergency treatments for those who are not able to afford commercial coverage. I however do not think they should run the system. Politicians are not the patients waiting for treatment nor are they doctors; they should not have any say in how people’s health should be managed. For this reason I have made the following suggestions 1. Give doctors more legal protection from law suits. I feel that at doctor should be treated as a good Samaritan when it comes to treatment http://definitions.uslegal.com/g/good-samaritans/ . Although I strongly feel that people should maintain the right to compensation if a doctor is negligent, I feel we should have much higher standards to what negligence is when someone is trying to save your life. As is one of the MAJOR costs associated with being a doctor is malpractice insurance. The costs associated with malpractice and malpractice insurance has scared away people from entering certain fields of medicine (i.e. primary care) and has driven costs up so much for doctors many small practices can no longer afford to stay in business. 2. Loosen Medicare and health insurances power over price control. Although price control seems good, it has only managed to create high profitability for insurance providers and it has been hurting primary care provider’s ability to stay in business. Although it may seem counter intuitive to loosen this control, I strongly believe by allowing primary care providers to have more control over their prices you will create new competition. This competition will give doctors a reason again to become primary care providers. This will create more competition and lead to more doctors. When the number of doctors has increased less resources will need to be spent on emergency rooms. 3. Stop allowing foreign nations from capitalizing off of US medical research. Currently a lot of nations have laws that allow them to limit how much they can be charged for drugs. Because of these limits, the citizens have to pay for most of the drug research for the drugs that get sold overseas. If someone wants to buy US medicine they should be required to pay the US price for that medicine. The only subsidizes should be ones provided to nonprofit charitable organizations. 4. Make medical billing more transparent. From my understanding one of the reasons why bills are so high for an emergency room is because paying customers are indirectly subsidizing the cost of non-paying customers through having to pay exuberant prices for things. My guess is that the reason a getting a basic shot at an emergency room can cost over $1k is because I am paying for all of the people who could not afford to pay here their bills. This is probably the only way for some hospitals to stay in business. Even in an emergency room a shot should not cost a few hundred dollars at most + the cost of the medicine. By lowering the costs of emergency medical bills and insurance should become a lot cheaper. 5. For those who cannot afford insurance, there should be a government program in place that helps subsidize the cost of treatment. For example unemployed people should be able to get vouchers for preventative care. If someone goes in to the emergency room without insurance the government should have a scale in place to determine what % of the treatment they will subsidize. Yes, these things would require more taxes, however I believe doing these things would make regular healthcare cheaper. As I said before we are already paying the bills of uninsured people through having to pay higher medical bills for our own treatment. I really do not think the medical field is making a killing off people like we think they are. People just do not understand how things are currently getting paid for. The reason why I am against complete government control is that I think in order for the US to have the best doctors we need to fairly compensate them and I do not believe the government can do a better job than the market. If the government ended up setting pay rates from for doctors what would be the advantage for someone to spend a lot of money and work hard to become the top of their class at an IV league school. In order to get people to spend 8 years in school and work there 4ss off, you have to pay them a lot of money. Most of the money though we are currently spending is not going to the doctors, to is going to the costs associated with being a doctor (ie insurance, tools, facility) and the cost associated to cover the medical bills for those who could not pay. Money is a powerful motivator and we can’t just expect that if we take it away everything will work out just fine.

Tenpoundbass says

I think paying more than $100 a month per household, is grossly too much for health insurance.

Finally found a point on which I agree with TPB ... True...

Funny how they can write a bill to funnel trillions of dollars to their bankster buddies in a month, but anything inside of a year to get health care for the millions of uninsured Americans is “rushed”. Well said. Also interesting how they can justify billions for un-necessary wars under the pretense of being in danger of attack from the "advanced weaponry" of a third world nation. Yup, them armored camels and scimitar swords sure cause me to lose sleep at night.

We have socialized, government-run systems for public schools, law enforcement, fire department, military, buses (transportation), parks, and others. Why wouldn't a socialized health care system be feasible? I need health care more than I need a bus ride. We need a civilized, moral health care system and private industry has allowed insurance and pharmaceutical companies to take costs higher and higher for profit. Steps towards universal health care and wide availability of generic drugs need to happen. The state of our system right now is embarrassing on a global level. Americans are even leaving the US to get health care and are combining health care with their vacations. Its really bad right now.

drfelle -- Love your sense of humor. FYI, my husband and I share a car (year 2003) that we own outright. We both do take the bus occasionally, but I still need health care more. And regarding vacations -- I meant that it is actually cheaper in some cases to go out of the country for treatment or to buy needed drugs. Some people just can't afford health care or insurance in the US. Personally, my husband needed some drugs and they weren't covered by our plan, so we got them at 1/5 the price in Canada. Even including all travel expenses it was cheaper to buy them in Canada one weekend. Isn't that pathetic considering the US is supposed to be a world superpower? The health care system is not taking proper care of US citizens.

Failure in this country is almost always attributed to laziness, poor planning, sense of entitlement, and poor-decision-making.

Yes, but I wasn't referring to people marginalized by their own bad attributes - rather, to hard work and how equal parts toil rarely results in equal parts wealth. It should, but it doesn't. It could even be said that the harder you work, the less you earn. Almost always, wealth in the West comes from knowing the right people, exploiting loopholes, usury, speculation, skimming, bribery, and...luck! Only occasionally is wealth the result from sacrifice, concept, R&D, production, invention or service.

Wait - I thought that we have a Democratic stronghold that's filibuster-proof. So how can the republicans block it? (this is a serious question, not an invitation for libs v. conservatives trashtalk)

camping says

Just because foreclosures are increasing does not mean inventory overall is going up. And if those foreclosures are selling faster than they come on the market, inventory will go down. In places that I’ve been watching, I know inventories are much lower right now than they were last year. I think in Fremont, CA there are actually about half the number of homes listed (around 500, down from over 1000).

Ok, let's look at some facts now. As you mentioned Fremont., let's look at it. Check out these charts in following site http://www.rereport.com/alc/monthly/fremont.html The first chart tell you number of units (SFH) sold (the black line). Number of sold homes in June 2008: 100 Number of sold homes in June 2009: 105. Now, look at the inventory data here - http://www.altosresearch.com/research/CA/fremont-real-estate-market Go to the last chart at bottom. Aug 2008 inventory: about 600 July 2009 Inventory: 384. So where is the magical volume of sale that ate up all inventory in last one year? Number of sale increased marginally from 100 to 105. The only change I see here is inventory dropped 35%. It indicates that two things 1. Many homeowners took their homes off from market, as they are not selling (waiting for good time to come back). 2. Banks are holding foreclosed properties. They are not listing them at the same rate they did in last summer. Bottomline, inventory drop is not due to sale volume increase (because there were no substantial increase). But the real question is how long can banks hold their properties. Someday they have to sell. Want proof? Check out foreclosure database in SF Chronicle - http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/foreclosures/ Numbers for Fremont's four zipcode - 94536: 240 94538: 209 94539: 31 94555: 85 Total: 565 and more to come. How long banks can hold properties do you think?

chrisborden says

My mother, 85, is in a nursing home since a stroke and broken hip earlier this year, and no way does she have quality of life. She won’t eat, has to be fed from a tube, won’t walk, etc. If it were legal to let her die, I would, and that is compassion, NOT cruelty. As it is, she is a burden to herself AND society, and no, I do not believe God is going to somehow miraculously restore her. I don’t even want to contemplate how much her care costs the feds and CA (in addition to her share, $761 a month). This stuff isn’t even part of the debate. Thank god I have it in writing that I’m not going to end up that way, no matter what. I’ll find a way to kill myself.

If she truly has no quality and if SHE no longer wants to live like that - or if she isn't able to make the decsions and her Power of Attorney believes that is the way that she would want it to be (or if there is no POA, the majority of adult children who can be reasonably found agree), stop feeding her through the tube (but keep it in so that she can receive hydration and medications if necessary), and allow her to die. Or call a hospice, end the feedings and allow her to die. If her doctor won't support this, find another doctor. It is legal, people do have choices. It's called Palliative Care. Read the articles on the nursing home page: http://patrick.net/?p=16361 http://patrick.net/?p=16353 http://patrick.net/?p=16352 (elliemae hops off her soapbox again)