Grayson unfair to Republicans

Hmm, why is it unlovable? If they believe that the status quo is fine, why do they need to have a plan?

Grayson is being completely unfair to the Republicans. Not only do the Republicans not have a plan, but it’s perfectly okay with them if the uninsured die slowly.

If only liberals could rid their movement of angry people like Grayson and Michael Moore, our national discourse would be ever so much more civil.

“I seem to recall that Republicans wanted to abolish the death tax, and Democrats objected. Which party wants to make money off of your dead corpse?”

If you get sick, die quickly, lest your kids need to spend their inheritance money on your medical bills!

Lest I seem unsophisticated, the onset of the Democrats’ weird mental deficiencies coincided with their decision to cozy up to big business and ask for money. “Liberals are not afraid of bigness”, as Hofstadter said.

“‘don’t get sick, and if you do, die quickly.’”

Amusingly it’s actually Ezekiel Emmanuel (brother of Obama’s Chief of Staff and on a couple of the health care reform panels/advisories) who says that one of the major problems with US health care as is is the huge effort put into complex end of life treatment. Way too much of the “strive officiously to keep alive” is his analysis.

So if anyone at all is saying “die quickly” it’s actually him.

(I think he’s almost certainly right in what he says too: this isn’t an attempt at a gotcha, simply something I find amusing.)

I appreciate the need for some “bomb-throwers” to keep your opponents off balance, but surely by the time you reach the point of being *part of the actual government*, one is expected to be responsible enough not to engage in the self-indulgence of these sorts of games.

Of course the opposition may engage in all manner of infantile behaviour, but I would expect my own side to have higher standards.

More to the point, when those I support fail to rise much above the ‘making farting sounds while the opposition is speaking’ level of behaviour, I’m slightly shocked to find the learned readers of this site celebrating them.

Is the real crime of Glenn Back not that he’s an ignorant buffoon, but that he’s an ignorant buffoon for the wrong side?

when those I support fail to rise much above the ‘making farting sounds while the opposition is speaking’ level of behaviour

I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of Grayson. He may have said something that is literally untrue: the Republicans have not formally issued any health-care plan proposals, and he claimed they had formally proposed the status quo. He then characterized the status quo starkly, but reasonably accurately: it is indeed better, at least financially speaking, to die quickly than it is to leave behind an accumulation of medical bills for one’s family to pay.

It might be buffoonery, but how exactly is Grayson’s loudmouthing ignorant? More to the point, is it misleading?

One of the crippling disadvantages of the Democratic Party, one of many crippling disadvantages, is that a significant part of the rank and file absolutely hates politics class warfare as such.

Fixd for you!

(And holy crap, there wasn’t any need to drop, or any justification for dropping, a piano on Tom West. Mind where you throw them bombs.)

Mr. Emerson at #13

Is your opinion grounded on anything other than your own prissy phobias and fetishes?

It’s grounded on (1) a belief that almost every human being is worthy of a certain minimum of respect (and, no, being a Republican does not drop you below that threshold) (2) not everyone who has an opinion that differs from mine is evil and (3) an arrogance that my beliefs can stand on their strength of their ideas and do not need mischaracterization and lies in order to succeed.

Salient at #14:

but how exactly is Grayson’s loudmouthing ignorant?

I would consider his characterization of the Republican’s plan (or more accurately, lack of plan) only marginally more accurate that some of the less ridiculous Republican characterizations of the Democrat plan.

Or, more specifically, his characterization is about as accurate as the “death-panel” accusation. Both have a factual basis (after all, someone has to say ‘no’ to needed healthcare), but are fundamentally unfair characterizations of the respective sides.

I’m not sure this is a fair characterization of Grayson.

It’s not and I withdraw the comparison. I did say it was marginally better, but mostly I meant that I found it as fundamentally childish as much of the Republican behaviour. To be honest, the manner of presentation bothered me more than the content.

I suppose I expect members of the government to rise above the Glenn Beck standard of presentation. That some Republicans don’t doesn’t really change my opinions of them. That some Democrats don’t, I find personally offensive. That readers here approve, I found post-worthy.

The comment that said Grayson should not have called Republicans “Neanderthals” because they don’t believe in evolution made me chuckle. Can’t remember who said it.

Grayson himself, I think.

His emergence has reminded me of Dennis Skinner, except that while Skinner is considered part of the Commons furniture, the concept of a House Democrat who sincerely dislikes Republicans is somehow scandalous.

To be honest, the manner of presentation bothered me more than the content.

Really? My mistake for intuiting the opposite from your first comment. I personally feel the opposite way — the content bothered me a lot more than the manner of presentation. I liked the Youtube-friendly use of posters, for example.

If he hadn’t said “die quickly” — in fact, if he had instead said “deal with it” — the whole moment would’ve been perfect, in my eyes. At the same time, I understand two compelling reasons why he felt it would be more appropriate to say “die quickly” and I grudgingly respect his choice of words.

And in the Situation Room follow-up, whoever the guy was who said at 1:08 something like “I want to know from you which people it is that I want to die, I want their names” — that moment of Zen, admittedly, made Grayson’s choice of words completely worthwhile.

Conversely, Grayson can be extraordinarily tiresome.

Salient at #24

I personally feel the opposite way—the content bothered me a lot more than the manner of presentation.

Partially because we are positively bombarded with “The Democrats plan is…” from the Republicans, I have no patience for anyone who claims to speak for the opposition.

Anything that made it clear that this was his interpretation rather than official Republican policy (ludicrous, but that’s how he’s trying to play it) would have reduced its offensiveness.

And again, I’d not have anything to say if he wasn’t a member of government. More power to Michael Moore et al.

Ceri B. at #21

What is farting about his identification of Republican priorities for anyone who isn’t already rich? What about Republican priorities for most of us is not well described by his two points, and how would you make them more decorously?

I can make what I feel is a cogent argument for no health reform, even though I am probably farther to the left of most people here. (At least given the support I saw here for private insurance to supplement a public system leading to unequal health outcomes.) However, I’ve found that if you make any argument for a policy, you are automatically considered a supporter and attacked as such. (And yes, I’ve had pianos dropped on me from the left *and* the right in consecutive posts (not here) :-)) Hence, I’ll refrain unless asked a second time.

I have generally found that if I *can’t* find a good argument for something that has widespread support of millions of people, it’s generally *me* that’s misunderstanding something important to many of those involved.

However, a good argument doesn’t mean a winning argument. It usually means a different set of valuations for both the costs and the benefits of any given policy. For example, freedom of choice is generally important to Americans. Depriving them of choice is a severe cost that wouldn’t be as severe for Canadians, which means that a system that is very good for Canadians (like single payer) might be terrible for Americans, not because of different outcomes, but because of different internal costs.

That said, I think the overall American temperament has gradually moved closer to something where a health-care overhaul is going to be a net benefit. We’ll see if I’m right.

Does it win your causes battle?

I think such passion *is* important leading up to the making of policy, and accept that it will necessarily mean both positive (I love my side) and negative (I hate the other side).

However, I think it unfortunate when those ruling the country have such passion that they consider much of the country “the enemy” or at best “stupidly deluded”. Yes, I accept that perhaps some opportunities are lost. But “the ends justifies the means” can be dangerous territory to enter, and we’ve just managed get past eight years of American government where it seemed that “to win, we have to be as immoral as our enemies” was oft times their motto. I’m not in a big hurry to re-enter it.

We’ve just managed get past eight years of American government where it seemed that “to win, we have to be as immoral as our enemies” was oft times their motto.

No, we haven’t. The same people still feel the same way, and they’re not gone. They happen to be out of power at the moment, but they’ve been very effective in crippling the easily-crippled Democrats.

Mr. Emerson at #27

Grayson is a Congressman, not one of “those ruling the country”, and by most definitions he is not “part of the actual government”. And individual Congressmen are traditionally advocates, not arbiters or deciders.

Well, I’m moderately ignorant of the ins and outs of the American government, but isn’t he elected to represent a constituency and doesn’t the body that he’s a member of propose and pass legislation?

If I’m wrong, then I certainly withdraw my criticism of him and those here who celebrated his presentation.

Tom West: “For example, freedom of choice is generally important to Americans. Depriving them of choice is a severe cost that wouldn’t be as severe for Canadians, which means that a system that is very good for Canadians (like single payer) might be terrible for Americans, not because of different outcomes, but because of different internal costs.”

As a Canadian, I find this to be a strange comment. Canadians like choices pretty well, as far as I can tell from my experience living here for 40 years. I admit I haven’t sought medical treatment in the US (and probably wouldn’t, since I’m not rich). Perhaps that’s the “choice” you’re referring to?

As a Canadian, I find this to be a strange comment.

You don’t have to be a Canadian to find it strange, Tim. The word “choice” is simply a talisman of American public discourse with little or no grounding in reality.

Most Americans’ “choice” with regard to health care insurance amounts to whatever plan or plans their employer happens to offer. And most of those plans limit your choice of health care providers. If your employer changes to a different plan, you may have to find a new primary care physician, should your existing one not be within the new plan’s “network.” Likewise, of course, should you change jobs.

The upshot is that Americans generally have less choice in terms of who provides their care than those under the Canadian system, or even under the NHS in Britain, for that matter. Most Americans are ignorant of this fact, of course, and the Republicans and their allies are doing everything in their power keep it that way.

But, y’know, Grayson was all mean and nasty, and that’s the real issue here. So let’s get back to what really matters, which is making damn sure that the Democrats play fair and hew strictly to Marquis of Queensbury rules while the loyal opposition is beating them with lead pipes.

Perhaps that’s the “choice” you’re referring to?

Tom’s formulation suggests that he believes Republicans are callously indifferent to poor people – the lack of choice of poor folks doesn’t count in this calculation at all, at least as Tom recounts it.

But it’s okay for Tom to suggest this, because he didn’t say it outright. To say it outright would have been rude.

Tom West: “Within the country, even if we wanted to, we can’t even pay for better health care than the guy next to us.”

So, Americans consider health care to be a kind of conspicuous consumption, then? Gold-plated bedpans and the like are important to the majority of Americans? Interesting. I would never have known, since their hospitals and doctors look the same as ours on TV.

“…even the more moderate Americans I’ve met find it almost inconceivable that we’d accept being told ‘sorry, you don’t get to choose your medical care.’ As a WAG, I’d say maybe 75-80% of Americans would find being denied access to the health care they wanted and could pay for simply because the government said so to be unacceptable.”

Again, this is difficult for me to fully understand, because I’ve never been denied access to the health care I wanted in Canada. Ever. I’ve had operations, emergency room treatment, pharmacological treatment, physiotherapy, etc. And this goes for everyone I know, as well. What is it that Americans get that Canadians don’t get?

Is this about waitlists, perhaps?

“strive officiously to keep alive”

Tim Worstall is plagiarising Arthur Hugh Clough here and attributing the nicked words to his target. Adjust your priors on the veracity of other statements accordingly. Although, can one’s priors go up to 11?

But I think most Americans would be quite upset that you cannot get (without leaving the country) 100% of the outcomes for 100% of the price (or 105% of the outcomes for 500% of the price) if that was what they were willing to pay for.

Naw. Most Americans don’t have the money for 100% of the price; what they’re worried about is having to pay more money in taxes to get poorer quality service, instead of getting their current level of service for essentially free. (The cost of their employer-based health care is basically opaque.) They are also worried about people who haven’t earned their health care getting health care.

So, Americans consider health care to be a kind of conspicuous consumption, then?

Not quite. There’s a substantial number of Americans who consider health care to be a perk of being a good person, i.e. a person who does what one is supposed to do, which is hold down a good job and not commit crimes. These folks are displeased whenever they learn someone who is not even trying to hold down a good job is not suffering for their impertinence. I’m not caricaturing here; I hear this exact disgust for “lazy” people who are “not even trying to hold down a job” every time I go walk around an anti-Obama rally. I still have a “redistribute my WORK ETHIC not my NET WORTH” sign that somebody gave to me. In fact, at all 3 rallies I’ve attended so far, anti-lazy struck me as the predominant sentiment: how dare people try to get something without working hard for it?

Grayson may be exhibiting frustration at the right’s response (denial and anger re: Kubler-Ross) to Obama’s reasoned approached. Has Obama not given a reasoned argument?

Or it could just really be fear of the socialism slippery slope. But I doubt it.

As I told my son when he was mentioning ‘free’ health-care, “because our family is fortunate enough to be earning an above average income, we are almost certainly paying far more for the same health-care than we would if we were living in the United States.

This is not certain at all. One of the features of the American system is the unevenness — some individuals and families, for example the self-employed or anyone with pre-existing conditions, can’t get insurance except at an exorbitant price.

I hear this exact disgust for “lazy” people who are “not even trying to hold down a job”

I think this is the dark side of the belief that is responsible for much of America’s success: That literally anyone can be a success. It has motivated countless numbers of people to work hard and helped America (and themselves) become the most economically successful nation on the planet.

Unfortunately, it comes with the dark side – if anyone can succeed, then if you’re unsuccessful, it’s your fault, which makes sympathy for the less fortunate a lot rarer commodity.

In my opinion, it’s certainly one of the main reasons that America didn’t have universal coverage years ago.

This sort of thing is not restricted to the US. It’s surprisingly common that beliefs that are one of a nation’s biggest strengths are also their biggest weakness.

From a British perspective part of the problem is Americans’ pathological misplaced optimism about their personal circumstances. I remember reading a survey somewhere that claimed that 90% of Americans believed that they would be in the top 10% of earners ‘soon’, or something like that. If you did that in Britain you could probably reverse those numbers.

And if a lot of people really do suffer from the delusion that they are or soon will be among ‘the rich’ then it’s not too hard to understand why they vote for policies that benefit the rich and screw over everbody else including, sadly, themselves.

I remember reading a survey somewhere that claimed that 90% of Americans believed that they would be in the top 10% of earners ‘soon’, or something like that.

That sounds doubtful (misremembered). As for whether 90% of Americans would assert they “deserve” to be in the top 10% of earners, I might buy that.

But then, check this and compare with this. A lot of Americans see politics as the arena in which they might lose what little nests they’ve built up through hard work to taxes and redistribution. And a lot of Americans don’t.

I just happen to have my most recent (monthly) pay slip here on the desk next to me, and so for the interest 0f the Americans out there, I thought I’d run the numbers — for some insight into the Canadian soc1alist nightmare (I know I always appreciate examples when I’m trying to understand something).

Salary – $2,139.62

Federal Tax – $158.93

Provincial Tax – $52.20

Employment Insurance – $37.02

Canada Pension Plan – $91.47

I’ll get the taxes back in the form of a refund next year, but presumably they’re being used right now to partially cover the costs of the medical system.

I also pay $54.00 a month separately to the BC Medical Services Plan. I won’t receive those fees as part of any kind of refund. The monthly rates are $54.00 per one person, $96.00 for a family of two, and $108.00 for a family of three or more (subject to periodic changes).

Mr. Emerson at #46

This is not certain at all. One of the features …

John, I think you’ve missed my point. At 16, he’s well aware of the benefits of the Canadian system, after all he has American e-friends with no coverage at all who need a doctor but can’t afford one, and those who are in trouble because of pre-existing conditions.

It’s the costs that he’s unaware of. He’s never been on a waiting list and it’s never occurred to him that medical costs come from somewhere. It’s my job to teach him what those costs are, that, if he’s lucky, he won’t *personally* necessarily be better off financially, and (I hope) make him understand that those costs are worth paying. I’ve also taught him that when welfare support is not immorally low, there are people who will quit work and live off welfare that you are paying for, and that doesn’t make a decent welfare rate the wrong policy.

I will not see my son support any position simply out of ignorance of the costs. I’ll hope that I’ve instilled in him my values, so that he will weigh things much as I would, but I will not see him support the same policies that I do simply because he thinks the ‘other’ guys are stupid, evil, or stupid and evil and ignores what they say.

He needs more than ignorance to protect his beliefs. He needs to have chosen.

Engels at #50: To that I would add that the idea that everyone can be inside the top 10% causes a peculiar shame in some Americans. I think some of the irrational rage (e.g., by someone interviewed in the news who got Medicaid but was vehemently opposed to a government plan for others) is toward immigrants, etc. who they perversely blame for their inability to get in the top 10%. If you believe being in the top 10% makes a person better and anyone should get into the top 10% but you remain on the bottom then you look around for someone to blame to evade the sense of personal failure. None of my peculiar theories ever fly on CT but lately I’ve been speculating (without any evidence whatsoever) that perhaps the much more successful repression of Communism in the U.S. stamped out any chance of the white poor blaming the white rich for their bad luck. (There are obviously many causes for this.) In any case, the peculiar way the economically deprived in the U.S. react to their situation is interesting. It sometimes feels not just like a set of false beliefs but a whole cognitive scheme. Americans look to individualist explanations of their social experience. In France, the disaffected with riot and damage property. In the U.S., the loan gunman seethes and then shoots up his annoying co-workers.

It’s my job to teach him what those costs are, that, if he’s lucky, he won’t personally necessarily be better off financially,

Someone who’s lucky and has good health is better off with no health insurance at all, regardless of its source. I am one such person; I had health insurance from my job from 1975 to 2002, but except for eyeglasses I only received medical treatment twice. Perhaps that would have been $3000 out-of-pocket, or a bit more that $100 / yr. Throw in my son, who also was healthy, and it might have been twice that. If I had taken the health insurance benefit in cash, I’d have been better off.

In other words, you’re mixing the fact that healthy people make transfer payments to sick people in any health insurance plan, with the fact that in a tax-paid plan rich people support poor people. But healthy people helping sick people is the nature of health insurance, and the value of it is the security and lack of worry, not some measurable lump of health care received. And all Canadians have that security, whereas the only Americans who have it are those in the most deluxe plans and those who can self pay.

You’re also missing the fact that the Canadian plan costs less overall for the same service, and that people who depend on HMOs also face denial of service and wait lists. And as it happens, American per capita government spending on medical care approaches that in nations with “socialized medicine”. Private insurance and out-of-pocket spending are on top of that. My guess is that all but the top 10% or so of Americans would be better off with the Canadian system, which might implicit in your argument but isn’t something anyone would take away from what you’re saying. Here in America we are less concerned about the exquisite perfection of our political arguments but are happy to be 90% right.

Your militance and sense of duty about about making sure that your son is aware that the Canadian health care system doesn’t help him or you strikes me as being capable of multiple interpretations. In the US the public choice have done a wonderful job of convincing everyone that all government spending comes directly from their pockets and is transferred to the unworthy, but you son won’t need their help because you’ve already explained it to him.

I’m glad you dropped the prissy anti-Grayson troll you started off with, BTW. Thanks! Your more recent indirect, CS-Lewis-type troll is more fun.

Lately I’ve been speculating (without any evidence whatsoever) that perhaps the much more successful repression of Communism in the U.S. stamped out any chance of the white poor blaming the white rich for their bad luck.

The Democratic Cold War liberal consensus after 1948 involved both purging the Communists and their fellow travellers, a committment to procedural or administrative (anti-populist) liberalism, and a commitment to a harmonious business-government-labor harmony. Simultaneously the Democrats began the switch away from its historical support of segregation, which had the unintended effect of causing welfare spending to be identified with transfer payments to black people.

Based on my reading, every American progressive / populist / democratic socialist initiative in the last 120 years or so has been destroyed either by mobilization for war or by racism.

“Socialized” is OK, “soc*alist” is not. Check.

this might implicit in your argument but isn’t something anyone would take away from what you’re saying.

If you’re going to converse with Tom W., you’ll want to keep this available to cut-and-paste.

I appreciate the need for some “bomb-throwers” to keep your opponents off balance, but surely by the time you reach the point of being part of the actual government, one is expected to be responsible enough not to engage in the self-indulgence of these sorts of games.

One thing I’ve noticed about those who harp on liberals’ etiquette is that the complainers have a really hard time maintaining a consistent narrative, and are always inventing new rules. Thus, we see with Tom W. that it’s okay to be a “bomb-thrower” if you’re out of government (except it’s not okay if you’re Glenn Beck, apparently), but somehow getting elected to democratic office means that one must observe a level of decorum that’s completely inappropriate for democracy.

Was Thomas Jefferson polite about King George (who, after all, had his own legitimate point of view about the controversial issues of the day)?

Where did that rule come from?

Let me propose a different rule: We ought support and denigrate people in direct proportion to their productive support for worthy causes and, of course, their use of legitimate means to support those causes. Vigorous advocacy by democratically elected leaders is the reason we elect them. The problem with Glenn Beck is not that he’s mean, but that he’s dishonest, crazy and supports appalling causes. And the fact that he’s in media rather than an elected representative mitigates his loathsomeness not a bit.

He made and compounded an unforced error by using the term “holocaust”.

You know, as someone who fancies himself a member of the reality-based community, I instinctively recoiled from this at first, too. But Grayson seems to understand where the liberals have been getting their lunch eaten, and he seems to have a plan to do something about it.

Republican policy preferences create a lot of misery and death. Is it fair to compare American health care policy to the intentional murder of millions? No, it’s not. But, of course, Grayson didn’t do that.

What he did was invited people to consider just how great a tragedy our healthcare system is – a discussion that has been weirdly absent from the debate. Good for him.

He should have been ready for this, and the fact that he wasn’t tells me that he’s going to be stepping into his own mouth before long.

Yeah, I dunno. I’m agnostic on this – he does seem clumsy. But he has moved the conversation in his direction. He’s being asked: Is this the Holocaust? It almost doesn’t matter what the answer is; the fact that we’ve started to publicly contemplate the actual scope of our healthcare calamity is a big step in the right direction.

“Americans’ pathological misplaced optimism about their personal circumstances.”

Still, that mistaken belief does make them extremely diligent and thus successful, if perhaps less generous to those who fail.

Maybe, maybe not. The recent American-made global financial crisis has excessive optimism written all over it. (Among other things, including fraud. But a lot of people apparently actually believed they had discovered a perpetual profit machine.)

I would be a lot harsher on Grayson’s weak choice of a term there if there were, say, 3 other Congresspeople regularly saying anything of the sort. But I’m not going to say “you mustn’t do that unless you’re fully prepared for every BS angle the noise machine will come up with.” Practice would put polish on it.

You’re a troll because you’re highly annoying and that seems to be your goal. I’m not familiar with your previous work, but others who are seem to agree with my snap judgment. In many respects what you are contending with here is not so much disagreement as personal dislike, though of course being disliked may well be your goal since it reinforces your feeling of calm superiority.

For example, most of us here are aware that the Canadian healthcare system is paid for by taxes!!! Most of us are aware that the Canadian system is not pertfect!!! We’ve heard about the waiting lists millions of time, and we expect to hear about them millions of times more.!!!

As for me, I’m part of the campaign for health care reform, I suspect that many others here are, and I see no reason why everyone here, and Crooked Timber as a corporate body, shouldn’t be. And in fact, I think that that was pretty much the purpose of this thread. And you probably knew that:
“He only does it to annoy,
Because he knows it teases.”

On the balance, knowing what I know, a system modeled on the Chinese, British, Swedish, or French system, any one of them, would be far superior, and (this is where we may most disagree) I think that after two years with a such a system, most Americans would agree — which is why there is such furious opposition by people with a stake in the status quo.

As you ask, but did anyone learn anything new? None of the things you’re insisting that we stress are new to anyone here. Why should we frame what we say about the Canadian system in terms of its deviations from from otherworldly perfection.

Your opening statement of Grayson was imbecile., just self-righteous posing. You didn’t even understand what was going on, but just used Grayson’s speech as a platform to display your superiority to politics in general.

You may well ask why I am willing to spend my time on someone such as yourself. That is indeed an interesting question, the answer to which shall be defered to a later time.

engels – Thanks much for the link. But you didn’t happen to mention the most enlightening factoid:

Borrowing leads to identification with the rich, according to economists Fabrizio Perri of New York University and Dirk Drueger of Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany.

Insofar as that is true, wow. I’ll have to go look up the study.

To get way off topic…I like Grayson. If he isn’t “polished” enough yet to stand up to the nit-picking from supposed allies on the “left” yet, well good.
Then we can enjoy watching him learn. I enjoy watching him make Fed officials squirm uncomfortably. Call me a sadist.

Goodness knows, someone has to take the damn (republican) bull(S#&%) by the horns and give it a good shake regularly. Come to think of it, he could shake a fews dems too, wouldn’t bother me a bit.

As far as “debating” certain comments here, I’ll just close with this: Last time I went to see a doctor (I have no insurance), I went to the emergency room of the hospital across the street from my condo building. (Food poisoning.) Got directed over to a waiting room, where I filled out a questionnaire. Nobody asked me about where I worked, what insurance I had. or even where I was from, and I don’t speak their language.

Oddly, it isn’t a “tax issue” or a “do you deserve care” issue, it is just medical care.

Was given an ID card for the next time I needed to see a physician.
Waited @ 15-20 minutes, went in to the doctor. Quick questions asked, brief exam, handed a bill, told to go see cashier. Paid bill ($8.50), was handed a receipt and my medication.

I’m not even a citizen of this country. I live in Chiangmai, Thailand now.

Now some here might argue Americans wouldn’t care for this, as I didn’t “get to choose” who my doctor was..but this American won’t. And the “15 minute wait” I think most Americans would tolerate. Call it my WAG…..

The “39% that think they will soon be in the top 1% income earners”?? What was the percentage of votes received by the losing McCain/Palin ticket, again?

Most sane nations ignore delusional thinkers(ing.)

J.E. at #69: Thanks. My late Armenian grandfather used to tell us: “I forgive, but I no forget.”

Others should take heed of his wisdom.