patrick.net

Can't find the post, but somebody recently posted on one of the primary issues with health care in the US - that old, dying folks are kept alive at a huge expense. Here're some numbers . . .

"For instance, the study found that new pacemakers could cost Medicare and other insurers $1.4 million for every extra year of life they add. In comparison, healthcare economists often use $100,000 per added year of life as the maximum of benefit worth paying by the government insurer. In another example, the study predicted the use of tumor-strangling drugs would mean $498,809 per additional life-year."

Big big numbers.

Another thing about Clinton. When I went to school in Japan (pre-Lewinsky) the students I talked to thought it was hilarious that we had Clinton as our president. They would actually laugh when talking about him. This was the first time I got the impression that he was a joke to the rest of the world. Obviously Bush hasn't made a more favorable impression but at least other nations know he'll put his money where his mouth is. They knew Clinton wouldn't.

Many people dislike Bush because of the war in Iraq. However, they should be reminded that the war in Kosovo under Clinton was illegal.

I also have to address my earlier post before everyone thinks I have no heart.

who wants to read some depressing story about a woman who’s child drowns and her “journey” after that?

The reason I can't read something like this is that it hits too close to home. I don't want to stay up all night weeping over a fictitious story that makes me think "what if this happened to my child?" Oprah always has books that are about "life journeys" and they usually involve humans treating eachother in the worst ways humanly possible. I'm sorry but that's not entertainment to me. If I am going to spend some time winding down with a book or movie I want it to make me forget the things that depress me. I hope that makes sense.

I actually don't think Bush lied. Maybe that makes me naive. But does anyone really think Saddam was the kind of guy who would give up anything just because the US told him to? How long did we spend waiting while the UN inspectors went in and out of Iraq-- long enough for Saddam to ship anything he didn't want us to find out of the country. Syria has been a pretty open ally, do you think they wouldn't agree to hide weapons for Saddam? I think they would. I also watched an interview with a nuclear scientist who said Saddam tortured him in order to coerce him into building him a nuclear bomb. I don't think the guy was making it up.

I also read another book (I'll have to look up which one) that documented incidences of UN inspectors giving the all clear to facilities in Iraq that were later found to have been producing Anthrax. When confronted with it Saddam basically shrugged and went "my bad." The guy repeatedly did whatever the hell he wanted to and thumbed his nose at the US because he knew Russia and Germany, who had all kinds of deals going with him that benefitted them financially, would try to keep the US out of Iraq, and that's exactly what they did.

I gotta go now, but I'll try to find some of the sources I've read on the subject.

Don’t you think we would have found SOMETHING there? Just seems strange that we’ve basically found nothing, not a trace (or so it would seem).

From what I've read there were UN inspectors who were from countries that were doing back-door deals with Saddam and basically encouraged to look the other way. I'm not saying all the inspectors were dirty, but I understand that there were times when there were chemical and biological weapons being produced but the inspectors claimed to find nothing. After the US entered, who can say?

I guess it boils down to what we believe in our guts. I believe Saddam is evil and that we have seen proof enough of what he is capable of doing. I just don't believe he would give up weapons once he had his hands on them.

Do I think the Bush administration made the threat seem much more imminent than it was? Yes I do? Do I think the world is a better place without Saddam in power? Yes.

Do I think the world is a better place without Saddam in power? Yes.

Is Saddam evil? Yes. Is the world better without him? I do not know. What if someone more evil somehow took his place because of a power vacuum?

That said, I do not blame Bush for this war in particular.

Is Saddam evil? Yes. Is the world better without him? I do not know. What if someone more evil somehow took his place because of a power vacuum?

Yeah, always a potential for that. I'm just glad Saddam's son's can't take power.

I’m just glad Saddam’s son’s can’t take power.

Absolutely. I worried a lot more about Uday than Saddam himself.

Yeah, I agree, I’m VERY interested to see what comes of the whole mess with Annan’s son, not because I’m anti-UN, but because a good Enron/Worldcom shakeout is good for all in the end.

I am not anti-UN because there is no need to oppose a rubber stamp.

There’s one thing that I think separates the value of overthrowing Iraq from, say, the value of overthrowing brutal leaders in Sudan, Rwanda, etc, and that thing is oil.

Sadly, we will see more and more global conflicts due to resources like oil.

Sleepless

Excellent excellent points. It's always made me uncomfortable when we go to war to overthrow one evil leader and ignore atrocities committed elsewhere. You are absolutely right that there has to be another motivation. Bush claimed it was an imminent threat to the US, others say oil.

One question, how does the war benefit us in regards to oil? I honestly have never heard it spelled out in a way that makes it beneficial for the US to spend so much and what the returns might be.

There was an excellent PBS documentary on the subject, basically the invasion is part of the "Bush Doctrine". A wholesale remaking of the middle east. It is similiar to the old dominio theory of commie expansion.

Look, the point was already made, I just reiterate.

We aren't in Iraq to be the good guys. There are plenty of places where goodness is needed. There are sex slaves in Thailand. There are regular slaves in africa. There are child laborers in China. There are mass ethnic killings in Africa.

Even if I swallowed the big pill and concluded the guy didn't exagerate/lie to us to get us into war in the Middle East, I still think "WMD" was no reason to go.

Hussein didn't want anything other than to stay in power and get fat. He wasn't a threat to us. Just my opinion.

With regards to McCain - Saw him in Hartford about 6 years ago. The guy was great in person. I liked this quote . . .
"Remember what Chairman Mao always says . . . It's always darkest before it's absolutely black."

I like McCain. If he teams with Hillary, they could beat Reagan and FDR.

One problem I have with the guy is during his last campaign he freely used the word "gook" around reporters. I don't think that's ok, regardless of your honorable military past.

To tie in to the clinton/bush thoughts - McCain is an honorable man, and for that I will find him more tolerable than most.

While I am not condoning Sen. McCain's slur, I think that his time in the Hanoi Hilton gives him a bit of leeway on using it. My Grandfather could never refer to the Japanese as anything other than japs or even worse, nips. I think when one is tortured by another group it clouds your feelings for said group, forever.

"One question, how does the war benefit us in regards to oil?"

People like me see Iraq as our warning shot over the bow to the rest of the world.

Our govt. knows that the end of cheap oil is near. They further know that our greatest vulnerability as a nation is energy. Certainly the current oil/gas/ngas prices support that.

Japan had the same issue when they attacked us - they knew we would choke off their resources and they'd lose.

So one view - mine - is that Iraq was our way of saying to the world - "when the shit gets tight, the line starts right here, behind us." I read that in some article, and I think it's right.

That's what really bugs me about the whole war -the pretense - we're their to protect our economy, not to rescue Iraqis.

Japan had the same issue when they attacked us - they knew we would choke off their resources and they’d lose.

Actually, that's why they attacked us. We cut off their scrap metal and oil.

“Remember what Chairman Mao always says . . . It’s always darkest before it’s absolutely black.”

Mao did have ome wisdom.

I don’t present this as be-all, end-all evidence, but I really feel this administration is bordering on Imperialism. Imperialists tend to get their asses handed to them - Romans, Spanish, British, you name it.

I wonder what Mao would say...

If the Chinese decide, “hey, we want that oil” and invade, our defense mechanism is already well in place. This could get REAL interesting in the next 5-10 years…….

It will get very interesting...

Interesting times we live in!

Thanks for so many great answers to my question. Definitely a lot to think about.

I think the parties we have right now are not particularly working for most people. But the Independant party hasn't gathered steam either. I'm not sure what the answer is. I think Hillary is trying to portray herself as a moderate because she knows that the majority of the country desires a moderate candidate. The big problem is that a candidate can run as a moderate and then show their true colors once they're in office. I think the system could use some tweaking, but I'm not super savvy politically and don't even know where to begin.

I must admit I never realized McCain was so popular. I knew that he was respected but since he didn't get the nomination I just figured his numbers weren't as high--- that sort of thing. My father-in-law also flew in Vietnam, thank God he never got shot down. He gave my husband a book on McCain, now I'm going to have to read it. Maybe it's time for some kind of grassroots movement to get McCain into office.......

If he's the real deal, and he seems to be, then we are overdue for someone like that in office.

Good luck in your McCain research!

Thanks, should be interesting reading.

It's funny how the environmental lobbies work. Some things are good and others are bad, but often the truth isn't as simple.

I have a friend who is an ardent environmentalist and she really does try to do the right thing. She decided to use cloth diapers rather than disposable and that would seem to be the right decision on the surface. But I did some research and found out that the process used to clean the cloth diapers produces all kinds of chemical waste that is released into the atmosphere. Some actually argue that it's worse to use cloth diapers than to fill the dumps with plastic diapers. I don't know which is better, but it just illustrates the point that things are not as clear cut as they would seem.

How about not having kids? Sorry, had to do that.

Too late now!! Besides, someone's gotta do it or else we'll cease to exist.

Oops, didn't close my tags properly.

Ha! Yeah, I’ll probably contribute at some point as well….but do I really have to change their diapers or can I pawn that off? Any suggestions?

My husband's strategy usually involves pretending he doesn't smell the diaper. Oddly, it seems to work for him. :)

Voting straight partisan lines is a mistake, but so many people do it. I think that's why we end up with people in office who end up too liberal or too conservative. The pendulum always wants to swing the other way after a party has been in office for a couple of terms.

Tsusiat
Your views seem to me to lean so strongly socialistic that I don't think you'd give a candidate with any other idealogy any credibiltiy, regardless of their views. I may be wrong, but that's how it seems.

Do you know what goes on at college campuses these days?

Hell, do you know what goes on at the Junior High Schools these days? Scares the Hell out of me!

In Junior High they now have "oral sex clubs" and when you ask the kids why they would do such a thing they say "Well, President Clinton said it wasn't sex."

I kid you not.

quit watching FOX news and get a real channel. Try CSPAN .

I was a school teacher, seen it first hand. I was working during the whole Clinton mess and had a Kindergardener come up and ask "Mrs. Teacher, what's a b*** J**. I know for a fact Clinton's behavior in office had affected the way kids see sex.

Tsusiat

In all fairness I should educate myself on your polital party system as you seem to have a fair understanding of ours. Thanks for your contributions.

As far as the Clinton-excuse, they may be saying it, but do kids REALLY believe that?

Nah, but it gives them license to kill. But you know what? Schools are nothing like they were when we were kids. I was astonished when I was getting my credential. There is no respect for authority. I was a sub for two years as I was getting my credential, and though I had no major problems, the horror stories I heard were truly amazing.

A friend was in a class, and was lining the kids up to out to recess. (second grade btw) She was counting how many kids were in the class and tapped one on the shoulder. The kid turned to her and said "don't touch me or I'll sue."

I've seen kids in a fit of anger throw chairs across the room. I've had kids bolt out of the room in the middle of class and go out and start banging their head on the fence. I had a kid in 5th grade on suicide watch. Need I go on?

Do I blame Clinton? Of course not. But I think he had added to the degradation of our society.

By the way, I’ve gotta ask, how did you answer this kid?

The only way you can...Ask your parents.

Nice talking to you guys, but I gotta get up early with my daughter. Nite.

If “liberal” appeals to the masses, and the masses vote for the president, by the transitive property, shouldn’t we have a liberal president as well?

We do have a president that is very liberal in spending.

How on earth looking at these numbers, can anyone in the US believe that they can’t afford universal healthcare, when you are spending over 500 billion per year on defense, homeland security and Iraq an Afghanistan?

I've always said fuck the world. We should pull all, I mean all, of our troops stationed abroad and bring them home. Take the 14 aircraft carrier battlegroups and station 9 on the west coast and 5 on the east coast. Let the rest of the world fight amongst theirselves. Fuckem.

Oh, by the way, when it comes to MAD, Canada is a country with the technology and raw materials to build its own nuclear weapons from early on, if that was necessary . don't worry, if we had to, we could have done that in, oh, about 1946. Don't believe me? Check this out -

http://tinyurl.com/aosgx

More facts on Canada's "minor" contribution in WW I -

http://tinyurl.com/ck6y7

WWII - again, canada proved worthy, check this out:

"Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid", supplying its allies with four billion dollars worth of war materiel. A further credit of a billion dollars was given to Britain."

http://www.around.ntl.sympatico.ca/~toby/ww2.html

Ever hear of the man called "Intrepid"? Check this out -

http://tinyurl.com/btfnx

And, in case you didn't notice, US/allied actions in Afghanistan have been far more successful than those in Iraq. Check out Canada's ongoing involvement - and no, we didn't ask for you to pay our way, there or any of the many other places around the world where Canadians have been on peacekeeping missions in recent years.

http://tinyurl.com/aosgx

Happy reading.

Ooooops.

that last link on Afghanistan should have been:

http://tinyurl.com/97xvv

also check this out -

http://tinyurl.com/9b4ca

Happy reading!

Stanman,

all I can say is, if you think my worldview is coloured by patriotism, go look in the mirror.... Amercians set the world standard in that regard.

BTW, if Canada had needed to run our own MAD progrm in the absence of the US, we have had the technology and capabilities to do so since 1946. go back and read my previous link,

http://tinyurl.com/aosgx

Here is the current defense picture. As we do not pretend to be a great power, and do not fund aircraft carrier battle groups for instance, it amounts to the equivalent of a US defense budget of $130 billion - hardly small potatos. No way is the US defending Canada just because Canada is only spending $13 billion per year. On a total basis, that still puts Canada in the top 15 - BTW, we are not in the top 15 based on population

http://tinyurl.com/bs9zc military - total spending
http://tinyurl.com/9rz4x gross domestic product

Here are more stats on US military waste, look at the numbers:

http://tinyurl.com/aju7c

Stanman -

How can you say a country with 30 million people spending 13 billion on defense is measly? That still puts Canada in the top 15 countries in the world in size of our military budget, if not our population. The entire federal budget is around 110 billion this year - and that includes of course spending on health and education and foreign aid that are superior on a per capita basis to US expenditures.

I didn't say Canada could have developed a bomb on their own - I said they aided you in getting your bomb.

Most of the uranuium used to make your bombs came from Canada. The heavy water used to purify the uranium came from Trail BC. Check it out.

In other words, you may have developed the bomb, but are you seriously implying Canada is less technologically advanced than the US, or maybe North Korea or Pakistan?

If Canada wanted nuclear weapons, they could have been built in a very short period of time, so your arguments about how we somehow owe the US for protecting us are screwed up. In reality, we don't have those weapons or defences for big power political reasons - namely, the most likely military enemy of Canada is not the USSR, Japan or any other country, it is the US.

By the way, Bosnia? Canadians were there, same as you, including flying air support and on the ground.

Haiti, same thing.

Afghanistan. Same thing.

Oh yeah, we even had a couple boats down there helping you out after Hurrican Katrina because all your equipment and men were overseas.

Why you keep harping that Canada was going to be attacked by Japan or the USSR is bizarre. You are truly ignorant if you think Canada was unable to defend itself in the 1940s and 1950s.

But hey, that's your right, as an American, just say it and its got to be so....

You still haven't explained how an increase to cold war military spending levels makes sense when the adversaries (terrorists) are not armed with ICBMS, nuclear submarines or long range bombers.

Besides which, the weapons of mass destruction crap is the biggest propaganda bungle in recent US history - I mean, Saddam posed 0 that's zero, threat to the US. How about North Korea? Well, that is certainly different.

And what about Iran?

You are now fighting in Iraq when in the long run, Iran is poised to develop nuclear weapons. Maybe you invaded the wrong country, if you are concerned about WMD?

Tell you what, it would have been a lot smarter to hang onto the world's oil monetarily by paying top dollar, instead of trying to seize control of it.

IMHO.