Limbaugh's drinking game: "a drink for every black person I see" on Kennedy's procession, lined with "union thugs"

I am way too tired to go into detail and it would fall on his deaf ears anyway but his claims about the Australian health care is all crap.

Wow! Let me be clear about a couple of things. I excuse nothing that was done under the guise of "gaining information". It was wrong, wrong, wrong! It was done and supported by a bunch of people who were operating in a lawless fashion. Additionally, I do not use my past experiences as as a "reason to reject reform". I don't think I said that anywhere. I do appreciate your perspective, though. I can understand how you would misinterpret my intended message.

What happened in the past 8 years angered a lot of people, me among them. But what is happening now, scares the heck out of me. I know that many people blame the old regime for our current situation and it would be impossible not to be among them. All I am asking for is a reasoned approach to those issues plagueing us today. We seem to be rushing to the finish line without anybody really seeing who is running. We saw that with the Stimlus Plan. Who knows how well it could have been done had there been sufficient time to even read the Bill and discuss it. I don't know what the 1500 page Health Insurance Reform plan says. I have only made it to page 600 so far. Is it not fair for both sides to at least read it before rushing it into law? Don't you read contracts before signing them?

Clearly we need reform. One would have to have one's head in the sand not to realize that. I pay $1800.00 a month to cover 4 employees. That's crazy! And you may be right about people who don't have health care being willing to wait in line. Were I in that situation, as I was many years ago when I couldn't afford any care, I would surely have been among them.

My point though, I can't imagine that a public option is the best solution. It will create a durth of doctors and hospitals willing to participate unless forced by the plan to do so. I have experienced this in the Medicare and VA systems. Both government run systems. By way of answers rather than problems, I would very much like to have answers. Sadly, I don't know the right answer but I do have a good sense of the wrong answer. Perhaps you can add value to the delima that faces our Congress by suggesting an answer. Or maybe anyone out there could. I wonder, though, whether it would matter.

You're right I am scared. I got scared the first time I heard "change" without any context. If you're not worried about what is happening, why not? What do you know that I don't.

And, sorry for my reasoned tone. I am trying my best to be reasonable in times that are economically hard, uncertain, and unreasonable. I see you, too, are trying be be reasonable. Thanks for that.

And by the way, to robyn20094113. Sorry to offend about Australia. I love the place. I'm sorry that you believe my examples to be crap. I ran a business there and while the US side of the business offered excellent health coverage, it was deemed, by my Australian partners, to be too expensive and as long as there was public care, we didn't need it. I listened to lots and lots of stories. From those in the public plan and from those who had private coverage. Those in the public plan were happy to have anything, for sure. But the difference in what you could have with private insurance or employer covered insurance versus the public plan was vast. I have two small business here in the States now. It is expensive to offer health care but I do. However, being fiscally responsible and frankly, trying to stay afloat in these times, if there was an option that covered my employees and cost less than an 8% penalty, I would certainly have to consider it. Or my board would. Chances are we would keep the more expensive insurance, because I don't believe in a public plan, my employees would get good care.

What is the answer? Any ideas? I would appreciate knowing. I might be able to sleep at night.

By the way, the presidency that Bush inherited was that of a great economy and huge budget surplus.

You're right. He did mention the "civilian national security force" during the speech he made about expanding the Peace Corp and AmeriCorps when he said "We cannot continue to rely on our military (not on our Peace Corps or AmeriCorps) in order to achieve the national objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." I have a friend in the Peace Corp. I don't think she thinks of herself as a part of "a civilian national security force". She teaches english in Africa. Seems different to me.

What did he mean? Anybody?

Really? To leave a job where a vast majority of people think you failed. To leave that as your legacy as a president? That's what he wanted? I can't imagine. He acted with the hubris of someone who believes he is right, that's for sure. He was ill prepared for what happened to this country. Not that smart. He certainly did some foolish things. Weak people are too easily lead around by those who are more clever. But to say he had the presidency that he wanted. Really? That would make him not only a horrible president but also a masocist. Maybe.

An executive "characterized by unity". So we all hoped. However, leaving half of the country out of the "unit" seems slightly contradictory. Reaching across the aisle but finding no one there would indicate one of two things: he isn't the unitary executive he promised to be and lied about trying to be; or he simply hasn't figured it all out yet. Let's go with the last one. It's fair. He hasn't been in office for very long. I imagine it takes a while to get the lay of the land as it does with any new job. So why not slow down until you get it and try really hard to bring everyone along. I think when he campaigned, he said repeatedly that he wanted a centrist government, one that worked for everyone, at least in theory. I wish he was a unitary executive. That would mean he would hear the voices of those who feel disenfranchised and work towards a solution that would include them.

Reportedly.