Yes, I know.

I'm guessing the Russians will spend about $300 million researching and
developing something.

Then the U.S. will come along at the 11th hour and spend $2 trillion on
airport security measures that have nothing to do with the problem at hand, and
finally offer to pay the Russians to do the work for them.

. . . about that asteroid Bob; looks like the chances of it hitting us are 
extremely slim:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091230/ap_on_sc/eu_russia_asteroid_encounter;_ylt=
AimTarPnZS9IdB3nI5DpvDZ0fNdF

W00T! Ready to take a ride?

http://bit.ly/8HNbui

Jadoggidin that would have been around 1970 to 1972 (can't remember for certain,
and yes, while A Christmas Story was set in the 1950s, (when I wasn't even born
yet) it wasn't produced until the early 1980s, but wasn't based on my life
story--although the swearing parts were pretty close, and the school fits, and
the turkey, and the Italian thing, and... Hey! wait a minute!

Well, at least I'm from Chicago not Ohio were they filmed it.

Unfortunately for Bob, "A Christmas Story" hit the silver screen in 1983, not 1963.

Ahhhh . . . so no more body searches for you at the airports I take it :~P

On an unrelated and yet ironically related note... I had surgery this year to
remove a BB from my eye socket after nearly 40 years of it being stuck in there.

Thanks Basticar.
I have never heard about a BB gun before. 
But was able to find it in wikipedia after you told me what BB means.

They are the ammo for a BB gun, little bitty round metal balls :)
. . . but you kid, yes?

Hans - just curious. What is a "BB" ?

Googling BB brings "Bed & Breakfast" but I don't think that is 
what you want to bring to orbit. ;-)

In the old days when speaking about "BB" it meant Brigitte Bardot. 
But that is many years ago.

/Quickly googles MMS support

LOL, I see . . . hmmmm, so you will be able to (finally) send phone pics?  All 
visual media downsized to fit the phone screens is useless . . . again imho :p

I detest trying to see such a small scale depiction of pretty much anything.  
Give me my 30" monitor *OR* my 60" TV for the pictures and leave that tiny 
little phone screen for hmmmm . . . phone calls and contact retention, ya 
think ;p

Just wait until monday when AT&T finally rolls out MMS support for the iPhone.
Yes we iPhone users have lived without MMS for 2 years (well I've had one for a
little over a year, myself).

So since we no longer miss having this feature, it'll be as if it were new to
the iPhone user community--which is large. 

The results? AT&T cell phone network should be hogged up on Monday or Tuesday
with folks sending MMS just to "see if it works". :)

Hmmm john33xyz . . . I don't see your point; are you standing against 
development in space or just against government control of said development?
/puzzle

So far as the cellular connectivity via satelites I'm thinking it would be a 
VERY interesting day if they all went down, in fact I'd almost pay to see it :p

IMHO . . . most the cell phone calls have simply replaced the human activity 
of nose picking and are somewhat less productive ::rolleyes

Also, think of the havoc that could be wreaked by a rogue nation with the
technology to send a tonne of BB's into an orbit that intersected geosynchronous
orbit.

As long as people like us (so called smart people) continue to support and put a
positive face on the nonsense which has gone on and is going on in space - the
regular folk will support it too.

People must be made aware of the scornful waste of money, and lack of return. 
I'm tired of hearing about microwave ovens.

When I was in high school and college I got sucked-in to the hype about space
travel and research as well.  In fact, my degree is in physics.  But now that
I'm much older, I see the truth much better.

One tiny example:  Anyone ever think about how many "All circuits are busy now"
messages we would get on our phones, if the Pentagon "for security reasons"
decided to temporarily turn "off" all the communications satellites?  The
land-lines and point-to-point microwave dishes could not carry the load.

Interesting project . . . wonder how this could be done.  I know, hit the junk 
with something enough to loose it's orbit and let it burn up on re-entry :) 
What do you think?

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/pentagon-wants-space-junk-
cleaner/#Replay

Hubble's back :)

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/NASA/photo//090909/480/eff53094d115481cb932f4bd0e
669dfb/

Beautiful.

Anyone else watch the shuttle Discovery launch.  Nice video of it here if you 
like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBLPkxhSGlM

I am still amazed that there are people riding that up!  What a ride :)

Didn't notice who owned it, but Chang-Diaz is the CEO and did you see some of 
those related articles?  As of Dec last year, this baby is scheduled to go 
aboard the ISS . . . W00T!  Wonder when.

Ad Astra? I thought Buzz Aldrin owned that company.
Hmmm...

Oh!  and it's still Chang-Diaz working on this Bob :D

Take a look in more detail:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/28/vasimr_plasma_first_stage_test/

. . . and now for a more current look at the state of this plasma techno' 
spaceship adventure:

 http://spacefellowship.com/2009/07/06/vx-200-demonstrates-superconducting-
first-stage-at-full-power/

This might help us get to Mars and Jupiter a bit faster...

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/plasma_propulsion_000616.html

I worked on this in school in the 1970s (on paper) but Chang-Diaz continued to
work on it to this day. He's got it running now, in two country in fact, Costa
Rica and the U.S.

I've always thought the way to travel thruout the universe is to harness 
Gravity somehow and then it would just be a matter of "sling shotting " your 
ship from each planets gravity field to the next,,,,,,I have my 8 year old son 
working on this right now. :>)

I just have to weigh in on this.

My motto has always been love my country, fear my goverment.

As for planetary travel, going to Mars would require new technology and 
improvements to existing technology.

It's only when we seriously begin to understand the gas giants will we see how 
little we know. Even the most knowledgable people can only guess/speculate as 
to what's out there. I believe there are whole new elements of physics waiting 
to be discovered.

Actually, it's an IOU since that seems to be the preferred method of payment 
these days...

:-)

how high will that check bounce?

Check's in the mail...

I agree 100% -- I think everyone should be more trusting. And to prove that you 
have the right attitude you should send me $100. 

Come on! We can do this. Prove to Basticar that you are not a right wing 
radical. 

I was thinking . . . yeh, yeh; I know . . . watch out!  

*BUT* anyhow, here it is.

When a society becomes as complex as ours, members need to specialize so that 
each complicated part can be done properly.  Each member can focus on doing 
the very best at their particular job because they trust others to do the same 
in their own speciality.

Stress occurs when one member tries to become an expert in too many jobs.  The 
quality suffers as well as the society, because not only is it impossible to 
do so many jobs correctly (for long) but it also demonstrates a lack of trust 
in the society as a whole.

Make sense?  So this is where I think we are today.  Too much information 
available to distract us from our own jobs, make us worry if John Doe over 
there is doing his job and meanwhile your own job suffers 
. . .  everyone suffers.  

The lack of trust in our society today is the *ONLY* thing bigger than our 
national debt O..o

I mean, come on . . . even the ants and bees get this one right ::rolleyes

Sorry, I didn't mean to kill the discussion... I was just saying Ted Kennedy,
John Kerry, Bill and Hillary, Albright, Daschle, etc were all saying the same
thing as Bush, some even before Bush took office.

I'm not saying that Bush was the only one that suspected that Iraq had WMD's.  
But although some of his predecessors had this suspicion (which of course 
turned out to be incorrect), none of them took us into war based on that 
suspicion.

I'm saying that W took us to war because he wanted to go into Iraq, and he 
used the WMD suspicion as justification by presenting this suspicion 
as "proof".  He also leveraged the support for retaliation for 9/11 to shift 
the focus to Iraq and pursue that agenda even though it wasn't really related.

And about 1/2 dozen of those prominate democrats were crying WMD before W was
even elected president. Can Bush therefore blame them for the WMD information?
If congress and the UN can say Bush gave them bad info, why can't Bush make the
same statement about his predecessors. Just asking...

He went to war with their approval, but that approval was based on false 
pretenses.

So "W" fooled both the United Nations and congress? That's amazing. He did not
go to war without their approval. I can quote about 10 democrats who also stated
publicly that Iraq had WMD. Wasn't just Bush saying that.

reponding with comments like...

L.I.A.R.S or small this or that, IQ of this or that kinda looks like you have 
no sense when I know you do... ~ or thought you did...

Constructive???

oh and is it "loose" or "lose"???  I'll let the public decide...

It's somewhat funny that some of these items aren't debated or pointed out as 
wrong at the town hall meetings ~ why can't they do that?  Why can't Mr. Prez 
do that?  Here's why...They can't seem to read their own legislation...

My opinion – we rush into Afghanistan for political reasons. Or should I say 
the politician rushed into it to appease the masses. From what I hear, 
Afghanistan is a shit hole – so no one really cared. Even the Russians were 
probably happy.
 
I think we are in Iraq for some of the same reasons. But I also think we are 
playing politics with the Middle East.  I wish we would not have started it, 
but since we did – well we are kind of stuck with it now. 

I do not like Bush – and I defiantly did not like a lot of his policies. But 
better arguments can be made than the “Size” of his brain (or other body parts).

Healthcare. I am a big believer in the saying “power corrupts” – so before you 
ever think of giving more power to someone – you better have the checks and 
balances all laid out.  Plus, I think the bigger the organization is the more 
ineffiecnies you will have.  I think state run health care plans would be a 
better option.  We currently have some state run healthcare – present the 
remaining states outlines of those along with a critique on how they are doing 
and let the states develop their own.  That way we have 50 states trying to 
figure out the best way to do something. If the state you are in does not do a 
good job, maybe you can go over to the next state and get the medical help you 
need. Diversity is good.  

And before you say they are not doing away with issuance companies – please, 
the bigger the company (or government) the greater saving you can pass onto 
your customers (think bulk buying). Then throw in a few laws/criteria to 
handicap the competitors. Yeah, I would be surprised if they company I am with 
did not go to the government plan – just to save money.

We all love wal-mart. But if I am looking for quality product – that is not 
where I shop.

Clinton said that at some point.

But Bush had wanted to go into Iraq for a long time (to finish the job his 
daddy started?) and thought he could leverage the push into Afghanistan and 
the public (including international) support for retaliating for 9/11 to get 
away with it.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."

Anyone want to guess who said this?

>>it had something to do with the Two Towers being blown up around a whole huge
lot of our citizens.

Yes, the kid down the street kick the shit out of my son, but that kid is not
around so I decide to go beat the crap out of the poor kid that happens to look
like the one that beat up my son.  Like I said, we went into Iraq because Bush
had a small brain.

I'm surprised that those that touted the 3500 dead in the world trade center
attacks don't realize that more than 10 times that number have been killed on our
side in this war. And I'm thinking its more like 40 times that figure now. Not
to mention the near Holocaust-figures for the other side.    
Talk about inefficient government run programs. Iraq War 2 - The quintessential
example of such.

No you didn't use the word fair.  Let me ask a question, what gave us the right 
to go into Afghanistan?  Because we felt like we were wronged.  We felt like 
the attack was unjustified...the attach was unfair.  So did much of the world.

My point was simply that while life is not fair that should not stop us 
from "trying" to make it more fair.

TFisher - I did not use the word fair in any way.  Do not put words in my 
mouth :p

Fact - the world is not fair. 

. . . but life still rocks *bigtime* and is worth taking the hits that 
unfairness delivers, and wallowing in the happy when *sometimes* fairness 
accidently happens ;)

Yes Basticar, we were attacked...are you not paying attention?  Who told you 
life was fair?  

Obviously I agree that we should have gone into Afghanistan (not Iraq).  I also 
believe if I am hit by a drunk driver that the driver should go to jail.  I 
also believe that if your man wins the election and doesn't a poor job it's not 
my fault, but we all have the right to continue to push the issues and try to 
keep them honest...as imposible as that might be.  They at least will know that 
we can spot the wolf in sheeps clothing.  Some think it's not acceptable to 
challenge the ideas and policies of our government.  I say it's as much a part 
of our duty as voting.

I have to keep telling myself this...Obama, Bush, and even Clinton are good men 
and they probably had good intentions.  I don't think the problem is the man, 
it's the system.  Even if they wanted to do something, I doubt they could.  
There is just enough greed, arrogance, and self-centeredness in men that would 
prevent our government from being "reformed".

You go Girl !! You are absolutely Correct !! WHOO AHH !!

Well ::rolleyes, pretty sure it had something to do with the Two Towers being 
blown up around a whole huge lot of our citizens . . . not to mention the 
planes that were destroyed; also fully loaded with innocent citizens, women, 
children, babies, youngsters, working men . . .

HELLO?  We were freaking attacked, got it . . . "ATTACKED"

. . . and I'm not buying the "we deserved it" bs for that one, no one deserved 
it.  No one.

I did not consider or even know any of the 3500+ Americans that were murdered 
that day, but I immediately knew they were of "my tribe" because the reason 
given for their slaughter was a simple "because they were Americans".  I am an 
American.

Just an fyi about voting, I do vote but it gets harder and harder to decide 
whom to vote for, as all the canidates seem to be pushing one thing or another 
that I absolutely cannot support.  I can no longer remember when I wasn't 
simply voting against the worst of two evils.

Do I deserve the government I have, perhaps; but short of taking up arms and 
running all the entrenched politicians out of their kingdoms, well I don't see 
a way to stop this socialization of our freedoms and the slow death of our 
country.

We sent troops into Afghanistan because the terrorists treated us unfairly and 
Neil forgot to tell Bush that life isn't fair.

As for why Bush moved our troops to Irag...well, your #1 reason sounds like the 
correct answer to me.

Please don't put words in my mouth...I didn't say getting hit by a car was 
related to Obama's healthcare plan.  I said that I can't control the stupidity 
of others.  

I am the type that calls 'em like I see 'em.

I still will not comment on your "Clerks 2" analogy or whatever since I have no 
idea what point you are trying to make, nor have I seen Clerks 2...I assume 
that it's a movie.

Neil,

We sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan for 3 reasons:

Bush had a tiny brain
Bush has an even smaller dick (or at least acts that way).
Bush was on a mission from God (in his mind).

Did I miss anything?

Fish,

Hmmm... Umm... Ya... I can't really debate/discuss this with you.
You're apparently the type that fills-in the blanks with the dark side/boogie
man (worse-case scenarios). It would be like discussing things with Glen Beck or
O'Really or Limbaugh--you don't want it no matter what, so you tend to embellish
in a specious way. 

Bob says "we deserve the government we have"
Therefore if I get hit by a car, I deserved it, therefore Obama's healthcare is
bad.

We're back to the Clerks 2 "logic": "Since God made Man, and Man created the
Transformers, its like God made the Transformers so they're not a slight against
God."

Well you're part way there - we should not expect fairness from life, though 
far too many seem to expect life to be fair.  The majority of people try to 
seek the best for themselves, and their tribe - and I say tribe because we are 
still somewhat programmed to be a tribal species, when things break down we 
resort to the support of and supporting those we see as members of our tribe.

In rare instances you have those who step beyond the tribal boundaries and 
help those who they see are in trouble, without recourse to payment for that 
help.  And beyond that you have those who seek to impose what they see 
as "fair" upon everyone they come into contact with.

We sent troops into Afghanistan and Iraq on very short sighted goals.  Both 
countries had very strong leadership (not exactly the sort of leadership that 
we in the west expect of ours), but without that strength those countries have 
devolved into tribalism - be that regional or belief based.  And we didn't go 
in with a solution to that, or maybe even with the foresight that they would 
become that way.

Healthcare is a mess, and I am also of the opinion that if you expect everyone 
to pay the same (much as the UK and other European countries do), then you end 
up with a system that can barely afford to cover persons of average health.  
When it comes to folks with health problems the system gets drained of cash.  
There's an on-going discussion in the UK about coverage for smoking related 
illness, that because it's self inflicted those people should not be provided 
with life saving care - and yet smokers in the UK subsidise the healthcare 
with additional taxation.  Now the same discussion is being raised about fat 
people (whether its self inflicted or genetic) - those people are draining the 
national health resources so we shouldn't spend above their fair share of the 
resources available.  Yet go to the US system where you're paying extra for 
the additional risks you take (or are downright declined coverage for them) 
and you have folks who cannot afford the coverage - or decline the option to 
cover them.  Which is better?  It's obvious to any thinking person that both 
systems aren't working - but what is the correct fix?  You go to the tribal 
thought and it's - so long as my tribe is comfortable, then the system is good 
enough for me, why mess with it and risk that status quo.

And swine flu will come, I'm not a chemist/biologist so I'm not going to worry 
about finding a cure.  I have hope that those who are in that field can find 
one.  Though from the numbers last year, regular flu kills a far higher 
percentage of folks who catch it than swine flu did - every case of swine flu 
death I know of had "underlying medical conditions" attached.  So maybe it's a 
storm in a teacup.  Maybe it will mutate and kill billions of people - which 
if it does, I suspect the current range of vaccines will not help, since my 
limited understanding of the subject is that as virii mutate they gain a 
varying immunity to the vaccines available.

It still all comes back to life isn't fair, don't expect it to be - @^&* 
happens, do your best to deal with it - there isn't always a lawsuit to look 
for everytime something bad happens.... it's just sad that most of the world 
appears to expect the opposite.

Marcus Cole, Babylon 5....we all know that life is not "fair", so should we 
just watch bad things happen because of that?

...why did we send our troops into Afghanistan after 9/11?  Life isn't fair!  
Why worry about the millions without healthcare?  Life isn't fair!  Why worry 
about the Swine Flu since life isn't fair?  

No, life isn't fair but that isn't going to stop me from trying to make it 
better.

"You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I 
thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible 
things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take 
great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
- bonus points if you know where the quote comes from...

If I were walking down a sidewalk and got hit by a drunk driver, would I 
deserve it?  Do I really deserve to be punished by the stupidity of others?  If 
you support our rights to bare arms and someone breaks into your home and 
shoots you, do you deserve it?

Yes Bob, it is my government, but no Bob, I don't "deserve" it.  NONE OF US 
DO!  I am being punished because of the stupidity of those who voted for this 
government.  I don't ask "why is this happening to me"...I can see clearly why 
this is happening to "us". 

What Bush started with the Patriot Act (Obama Promised to repeal Patriot Act, 
then voted to reauthorize it in 2005), Obama will continue with his Health Care 
overhaul bill...both House and Senate versions of the purposed Health Care bill 
will eliminate five basic health care freedoms that all Americans currently 
enjoy. Keep in mind that Obama said "health care is a right...something’s 
fundamentally wrong now" (Oct 2008).

1.  Freedom to choose what’s in your plan.  All plans will be force to provide 
coverage form Washington’s laundry list of benefits. This will eliminate 
competition.

2. Freedom to receive healthy living discounts. Under the White House plan 
everyone will pay the same regardless of age or health status.  Young people 
cannot opt out of expensive and unnecessary coverage. 

3. Freedom to buy only catastrophic plans. Everyone will be required to buy 
minimum coverage packages or pay a fine.  No word on what will happen if we 
refuse to pay the fine or how much the fine will be.  I doubt homeless people 
will pay for either the coverage or the fine.  This is after he said "Zero 
fines & no mandate for small business" (Oct 2008).

4.  Freedom to keep you existing plan.  Sure, you can keep it temporarily.  But 
your provider will eventually be forced to make it look like the government 
plan so it will not make any difference. 

5.  Freedom to choose your own doctor.  After five years most Americans will be 
moved into coverage will you will be assigned a primary care doctor who will 
control your access to specialists and diagnostic procedures.

And the cost of this so called reform is estimated to be one trillion dollars 
over the next 10 years.  All this on top of the huge deficits and major 
economic hardships.  

Instead of adding onto our big-government mentality in Washington, why not 
simply focus on trying to get medicines, hospital costs, healthcare costs down. 
There are things that can be done...after all, a hospital charging $25 for 
two Tylenol is what I call extremely excessive and abusive (or what I like to 
call legalized theft)!  

The problem with our healthcare system is similar to that in the mortgage and 
banking industry, GREED!

I believe that if Obama succeeds in getting his plan passed, the cost of 
healthcare will skyrocket so high that it will bankrupt our government or make 
us even more dependant on foreign governments.

>>I wouldn't say that I deserve your government...

Yes you do. Its your government too regardless of whether or not you wish to say
it is. It is, that is the fact and the reality. I thought didn't deserve Bush 2,
nor Bush 1 (although he wasn't as bad as 2) nor did I deserve Reagan. (I think I
voted for Carter, as did everyone, but then for Kennedy in the 1980 primaries).
But I am not a person who has something happen and says "Why is this happening
to me?" I think "What did I do to cause this to happen?" So about 10+ years ago
I got involved. 

Did you choose to go out and canvass your neighborhood for the person you voted
for this time? I did. I volunteered, I gave the max contribute allowed by law,
and I canvassed the area. I wasn't going to allow another Bush-level Presidency
to occur. I didn't work hard enough for Gore, and I wasn't as big a Kerry fan as
some, so I sort of became too passive on that one, and regret it very much now.
But this time I did 100x more work and I would have done 1000x more if I was
able to.

Regardless if your candidate won or lost, you and the candidates supporters and
volunteers and staff did not do enough to convince people that their point of
view was the one that we (the majority in this case) wanted. So we voted for
Obama. If I had to do it all over again, I would do exactly the same thing, only
more so, just to make the humiliation of the Republican defeat even more
pronounced. (I'm done with under 80 IQ crowd as President and under 60 IQ crowd
as VP. Caveat: Cheney obviously has a higher IQ than 60, but I was talking about
Quail and Palin)
 
So yes, we get the government we deserve; and every vote counts. Only those who
didn't vote (but could) have views that in all honesty are worthless to me, and
even worse, worthless to themselves.

I wouldn't say that I deserve your government...I didn't vote for Obama!  I 
didn't even vote for Bush in his second term!  So I don't see how your "famous" 
saying "you get the government you deserve" applies to those whose canadiate 
lost the election.  Even if we did vote on them, no body deserves the kind of 
people we've had in office during the past 16 to 20 years...and I am not just 
talking about the presidents we've either!  

All the bailouts and now trying to implement a "mandatory" health care program 
are examples of the US government stepping way over a line that they should 
never cross.  If they can force us to have health coverage then how long before 
they force us to die off at a certain age, become a part of the Roman Catholic 
church, or make other personal and private decisions for the people.  

We do not deserve Obama, we are stuck with him because of everyone who voted 
for him.  The tables would have been turned if McCain had won, but I would 
still be saying we do not deserve what he would be doing (or not doing) right 
now.  

This country is better than what we've gotten out of our goverenment the past 
20 years isn't it?

I said it once, I'll say it again, and then shut up on this one:

You get the government you deserve.

That's one of the reasons I'm not a member of a political party (except for 
that small fact that I'm not allowed to vote anyway).  You're voting for a 
representative, who will represent your opinions in the legislature.  Not 
every republican will toe the party line and neither will every democrat.  
There are very few people who support every tennate of either party.  So 
voting party is the lazy way to go.  If you research the candidates before 
hand, you shouldn't be surprised by anything they vote for in the coming 
session.  If you vote the red ticket, because you're a member of the red team, 
or worse, because your parents voted that way, then you get what you voted for 
even though you don't know what that is.

I think every election in the UK I voted for a different party member, because 
the guy I was voting for was one I believed was the more representative of my 
opinions.  And in local elections where you got to pick multiple 
representatives sometimes, I would frequently not pick all from the same 
party.  But then we had more choices than just the red team or the blue team.

Quote Bob, "The ballot box is your biggest voice . . ." 

Might I toss out a point to ponder on that subject?  

It's been a long time since I believed that the ballot box is my biggest 
voice; as somehow, be it media or brainwashing <not sure what> but somehow, 
I've come to believe that my vote doesn't really count.  That because I live 
in California and I'm just not as liberal as the apparent majority out here, 
well that I'm negated.

In the same breath, what I've come to believe instead, is that my biggest 
voice is what I spend my dollars on; all two of them lately :p

Is it true or is it something our commercial environment has managed to feed 
me  . . . wondering.

Debate?

Basticar,

Maybe to simplify your position even further...

Rules:

1) Obey all rules
2) When in doubt, see rule 1.


If I were running for Congress again, I would use your line from point 2:

"All politicians will have the same Health Care coverage as the people 
they were elected by."


By the way, a Representative form of Government is:

You elect me because I best represent your point of view; then I go to
Washington and vote my own mind. Hopefully it will be they same way you would
vote, and if not, I should be able to explain myself during the next election
cycle. 


Most (all?) people seem to believe that they can vote in just about anybody and
then have a say in what that person does or how they vote. But simply because
lots of people believe something, doesn't make it true or factual. 

The ballot box is your biggest voice and yet so many Americans would rather go
eat at McDonalds or watch Fox News, soap operas, porn or other wastes of time,
than vote. So... they get the Government they deserve.

Medicare - run by Federal Goverment?
Almost everyone over 65 enrolled?
Program is pretty good?
Big "socialized" medicine success story?
Are the limits/rations much different then private sector would offer?

I'm so tired of the "here's an exception to the norm therefore you are wrong"
argument. 

A solder was killed in battle, therefore our military sucks.

Can't we just say "I want XYZ and you don't. Okay, let's vote. Majority Wins"?. 

I know very few (if any) who want government-run healthcare. 
This includes most of congress.

Universal Coverage and Single-Payer options are, while a fantasy of the under
employed and those with family member who are severely ill, will never happen.

Sadly the reason it could occur is the same reason it exists in Tennessee and
other states--members of the LIARS** organization decide to vilify what is
really nothing more than a Government Insurance Plan by fighting against single
payer and universal health care. Which wasn't on the table to begin with. So if
they loose that argument, you get, well what most weren't asking for in the
first place.

But many of the Health Insurance Companies have long-since become like most of
the big Financial Firms--they are run by incompetent greedy bastards. And they
need a corral built around them or at least a government mandated replacement
for them.

And Tennessee is probably the worse example of anything government-run. That
state's government gets more U.S. Federal Funding for stuff than any other state.  

**LIARS = Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Republican Studies.

Personally I'm thinking I could support a Health Care bill on two non-
negociable conditions:  

1st - The politicians' private Health Care coverage is abolished as the 
unlawful perk that it should be.

2nd - All politicians will have the same Health Care coverage as the people 
they were elected by and have pledged to serve.

. . . from there, we can talk.

Author: Bob Cozzi 	Return to Forum  Refresh 	2009-08-17 18.28.04

Simply because we (you?) can't comprehend how the new system will work is no
reason to fantasy about how it will adversely impact you.

As I've said, the congressional Bill is a P.O.S. and is a reason to vote out
everyone who's been in there since 2000 or earlier. But that doesn't mean a good
program is not needed.

Obviously the Insurance Companies have become like the Investment
Banking/Mortgage companies were (are?). They all suck and will someday soon cost
you trillions in bailout money. 

Is there something wrong with a government option to provide insurance? 
How is doing that going to take something away from what you already have?
It won't.

Many States (I think there were 18 of them at last count) already provide this
kind of healthcare option (and by the way "healthcare"="Health insurance" and
nothing more). It works pretty well.
========================
works pretty well huh?  that's why TennCare (universal coverage crap) is
failing, underfunded and the provided "services" have been decreased (i.e.
rationed) newer more effective drugs can't be used (they cost too much)...the
list goes on and on.  if that's what you consider working well...then you have a
very warped definition of "well"

"Did I say it was Nice???  don't think so."

I think that if Hans wanted to pour any more sarcasm over "Nice," he'd have to
find a longer word.

well you answered it.

SS ~ no smart person is depending on receiving anything when in fact we all 
pony up every pay period.

MCaid and MCare ~ another joke which yes prez bush added this fine thing we 
call partD.  To think you can force price on manufacturers while keeping up R&D 
unchanged ~ something's gotta give ~ any normal person who knows the simple 
formula for sucessful business understands...

Did I say it was Nice???  don't think so.

I'm glad you can trust your's to do what's right ~ it is a nice place ~ good 
luck.

sydcor: Hmmm, what you suggest is that your country's problems run deeper than
just the debate over health care. Even if Obama could come up with the perfect
plan for health care (or any other issue for that matter), no one would trust it
since no one trusts the government. Nice.

and for some of us ~ getting boned by the government programs makes us a bit 
gun-shy ~ unless of course you enjoy that sort of thing...

SS, MCaid, MCare and even the USPS Prez Obama critiqued are but a few 
examples.  Personally, I think the USPS is very good but...

maybe the canadian government is a bit better at actually doing what they "say" 
they are going to use money for...

in this country private enterprise wins hands-down ~ is it perfect ~ NO?  can 
it be "corrupt" ~ YES ~~~~ but it is much better always...

Another great link 
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/07/08/going-to-mars-together/

True: Healthcare is managed at the provincial level. But I believe minimum
standards are set by the federal government.

Yes, there are problems in the Canadian system. If you live in a major city,
health care is excellent. But quality of care drops off in smaller towns where
it may be hard to find a family doctor. Waiting lists for some procedures can be
long. But that's improving. One way that's happening is the adoption of modeling
techniques based on queuing theory.

But all things considered, most Canadians are happy with our health care system.
Canadians enjoy longer lifespan and lower infant mortality rates, for example. 

For some of us, it is unimaginable that there could exist a wealthy,
industrialized nation where universal health care is not guaranteed to all of
it's people.

My understanding is that Canadian healthcare is managed at the province level, 
sort of akin to those US states that have state run healthcare provisions.  As 
such the level of care provided, and funding, can vary from province to 
province.  This is different from the European model where the healthcare is 
instituted at the national level.

Then again, in Europe you can typically cross the country in a few hours 
driving, where Canada and the US takes days by road.  So within European 
countries for specialist care you may find yourself many miles from your home 
town, but this isn't such a deep incovenience for the patient or family, as it 
could be in Canada or the US.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/18/eveningnews/main5250676.shtml?
tag=contentMain;contentBody

Also heard Vancover is having some healthcare challenges ~ but you're probably 
well aware of that.

Hans,
I think he meant barbell not baseball.

Quin, how about: 

"After you." 

...as the American male steps aside and allows someone else to take the place in
history this time.

Something in Chinese – No disrespect to China. But I was kind of hoping we 
would get there first.

"One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind",,,,, what do we say 
when we land on Mars ?

> (BTW, softball and baseball injuries are a major cause of ER visits.)

Naah, druggies wanting a free fix is the major cause. "Doc I got this pain in my
gut, can I get some oxycontin? Doc - Hmmm, sounds real serious, we'll have to
schedule some exploratory surgery right away, Uh, ok, Doc I feel better now, bye!"

sydcor: Do you have a link?

(BTW, softball and baseball injuries are a major cause of ER visits.)

Just one?!

and to make our society look even more dumb...there is probably a lawyer who 
will take his case!

Not only is common sense not that common.  But the guy is probably trying to 
find a lawyer so he can sue the BBall manufacturer.

I'd rather look up to Paris ~ The whole diaper thing with Lisa was a bit...well 
off putting...

Now ~ is "Chicken of the Sea" ~ fish or chicken???

An another topic ~ who saw the News regarding the state of Mass and some guys 
going to the ER for dropping a BBall on his foot.  Should have handed a bill 
for him wasting their time then booted him out the front door.

Do we no longer have "common" sense anymore?

neilrh 
Do you know what Paris Hilton has in common with a rocket scientist?  No common 
sense.

How good of a "role model" would you say Lisa Nowak is?  Then again, perhaps 
she isn't a "rocket scientist".  Heck, she may not have even been a scientist 
on a rocket!

Our CIO worked for Singer (Link Flight Simulation) supporting NASA's space 
shuttle training simulator development program.  He's a smart guy, but he's not 
rocket scientist either.  

A commercial manned spaceflight venture: 
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/18almaz/

Actually . . . this link is more direct, pics and less text LOL

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/innovation_incubator/centennial_challenges/inde
x.html

Ah HA!  I found something else that goes right along with private individuals 
and NASA and the space program:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/371960main_2009_prize_proposal_call.pdf

. . . and I agree; Space exploration brings out our best and heaven knows, we 
need a LOT more of that.

Another argument - it's better to have a rocket scientist as a role model, 
than it is to have Paris Hilton!

Hans,

>>Some argue that the only thing holding back private exploitation of space is NASA.

As someone who has participated in a two private space ventures, I can testify
that any NASA effort in the Commercialization of Space, begins and ends with
Private Companies paying NASA Research Centers to develop certain technologies,
otherwise they (the private firms) are excluded from participation in the project. 


I hope this will change someday, but the first thing that would need to be done,
is to consolidate the NASA centers to no more than say... 3 location. Then the
political benefits of spreading the research out over 7 different centers would
be substantially reduced.

Back to space,,,,When I was a kid growing up during NASA missions like most 
kids I idolized all the astronauts had pictures of them right next to Sandy 
Kofax,,,Space exploration , this was good for america,,good for kids to have 
role models. No matter the cost,  the payback for space exploration can be 
measured in the wonderment of children and future generations.

Ditto on Sydcor, I like the way you summed that up :)

What makes me extremely wary of the HCare bomb; bomb in the sense that it's 
subject matter has exploaded into our current affairs and dominated everyone's 
thoughts, is the what do they call it, the ahhhhh, crap.  Forgot :(

OK, what are they calling that ton of bail out money we gave the banks?  In 
any case . . . it is SO freaking far from working I feel like someone should 
be going to jail for taxpayer fraud or the like.

My daughter and her husband are both very hard working and have one 2yr old, 
my granddaughter . . . they struggled and scrapped together enough to buy a 
small condo around 5yrs ago and paid $290 for it with all their money, 
$40K as a downpayment . . . and guess what, the condo is now only worth 
around $140K.
Other owners have walked away and that's leaving a few empty units, not a good 
thing.

So basically they are struggling to make payments on a Condo that they are WAY 
upside down in, watching others just give up.  The banks won't even talk to 
them about refinancing.  Where's that taxpayer handout . . . that money they 
and my grand daughter are going to be repaying . . . nowhere.

That is why I resist government help in such areas, it just always goes 
haywire.

Ack!  No time to finish, I have to get to work now; catch you on the flipside.

Bob wrote: "People don't want to spend more money on Space/Science research so
the derail the conversation by saying Government Run Healthcare is bad..."

Personally, I see nothing wrong with spending money on space research. NASA,
JPL, ESA, etc. are doing some wonderful things in space. Look at Spirit,
Opportunity, and Cassini, for example.

But the real subject of this thread is about manned spaceflight. Experience has
shown that human spaceflight is expensive. Very expensive. Can it really be
justified in light of a) other budget priorities, and b) current global economic
conditions?

Look at the Apollo program. Was there really any justification for sending men
to the Moon other than politics?

Consider the Mars rovers. For the price of one manned mission to Mars, how many
Spirit-class rovers could be exploring the surface of Mars?

Or consider the Hubble telescope. The cost of multiple shuttle flights to
service Hubble could have paid for lots of Hubble telescopes. (Actually, about a
dozen Hubble-class telescopes have been launched already. All but one were aimed
at the ground.)

Some people argue that there's an economic benefit to sending men in space. In
that case, let's let private companies compete for the riches out there waiting
to be exploited. Some argue that the only thing holding back private
exploitation of space is NASA.

Conversation recap....
- Let's go to the moon/mars/play asteroids.
- Where are we going to get the money.
- Tax churches.
- Heck tax everything.
- More taxes isn't the answer the government is a bottomless pit to bury money.
- We should stop expecting the government to provide us with everything.
- You mean like it's trying to do with healthcare?

Rather organic conversation if you ask me.

The issue I have with the presidents 8-point plan is that those are his 
desires.  The legislature are the ones who will present him with a bill which 
may or may not be in the same ball park.  And the insurance corporations are 
pulling the legislature strings.  So if what the legislature ends up 
presenting the president is a complete Charlie Foxtrot, does Obama have the 
backbone to refuse to sign it?

People don't want to spend more money on Space/Science research so the derail
the conversation by saying Government Run Healthcare is bad...

Magic's Greatest Secrets Revealed...  

Number 1: Redirection
Number 2: Distraction

I said:

The "I don't want a government bureaucrat between me and my Doctor" argument is
a Republican boogieman slogan and not a debatable fact/point.

"If the Government provides a health insurance option, therefore it will put a
bureaucrat between me and my Doctor". Specious reasoning at best.

No one is advocating Government-run healthcare, except a few Congressman, but
that's because their constituents elected idiots.

Has anyone here read the 8-point health care reform directive from the
President? I have... and all I can say is, like so many Americans, many on this
forum have a very active imagination.

> I don't know how you draw that conclusion.

I guess I missed your point. Can you clarify? Are you saying people without
healthcare won't want it if it becomes available via the govt? Yes, that makes
no sense.

I guess some of us are forgetting one thing ~ government plan?  Who pays...

See MCaid and MCare ~ are they doing well???

Here's what's starting to happen ~ States can't pay their bills for 
MCaid...pretty soon MCare will start doing the same....

Those businesses trying to provide care, drugs, etc...will (and have) started 
downsizing will then simply walk away...

Is the HCare in this country perfect ~ heck no.  Is a government plan 
abosolutely necessary ~ heck no...

Ways to fix.

1.   Tort reform
2.   Those who lead health lifestyles ~ give them a break.
3.   Stop trying to cure the world ~ if you're not here legally but yet
     continue to abuse our system ~ send em' home...

Todd, can we please avoid the "Since God made Man, and Man created the
Transformers, its like God made the Transformers so they're not a slight against
God" argument? (Clerks 2).

Why would Churches, which all advocate political candidates, be switched to
non-tax exempt for being politically active? Aren't PACs tax exempt? In fact,
they don't even file income tax returns, just quarterly FEC forms which are
balanced, but never (i.e., very rarely) audited.  

So if I were to form a PAC that gives money to only those candidates that are
(for example) non-denominational or support Turtle population growth, or
extensive Space exploration projects, that PAC pays no taxes, today.

So how/why would a Church that advocates X, Y or Z in their choice of
candidates, be converted to a taxed entity?

Regardless, this is the old, "I don't want to work hard enough to get the kind
of government we should have, so I'll just complain about it" argument. 

We have the government we deserve (worked for).
Just like we have the house we deserve, the car we deserve, and the family we
deserve. We created those things, no one and nothing else did.

This is why Obama was elected, because those of us who sat by for 2 election
cycles got the government we deserved, and finally got off our dead asses and
worked for the government we wanted. 

But we're not finished, we still have to rid this nation of Pelosi, Reid, and
about 25 of the 30+ Republican Senators, along with about 15 of the Democratic
ones. 

The House is another story. Reforming that is like I said earlier: The "everyone
else's kid is on drugs except mine" syndrome. Where everyone believes the rest
of the House is bad except their own congressman/Representative. Well, I've got
news for those folks, there's only about 65 good Representatives in Congress
today. So we have a lot more work to do and it won't happen overnight,
especially after the last 8 years or running this country into the ground.

Bob,
<Oh, and Fish, taxation has no barring on a voice in political policy.> Today, 
churches can loose their tax-exempt status "if" they use the pulpit to talk 
about the election in a way that shows bias.  Obviously, if they are paying 
taxes already then they have nothing to loose...nor would big-government have 
the right to STILL try to prevent this from happening.  You can't have your 
cake and eat it to!

Taxing churches, the Salvation Army, and other charitable organizations would 
do far more harm than good and is a stupid idea.  Some ministries that sell 
books, CDs, and DVDs actually do pay some taxes and collect sales tax.  
 
I am sure that you know that employees of these non-profit organizations pay 
income taxes.  Members of the church pay taxes also, but trying to tax the 
tithe that belongs to God would step way over the line that is suppose to 
separate government and religion in this country.

The fact that this churches have remained tax-excempt in this country since the 
beginning tells me that there is no reason now to tax them.  I have a real 
problem with a government that look to tax churches, and other non-profit 
organizations, to fund more of their wasteful spending. 

It would make more sense to me if they taxed campaign funds.  After all, those 
funds are already a "waste".

Ringer,

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. That if you like your healthplan that
you're a sub 3-digit IQ. I certainly didn't say that nor did I imply it.

Yes, Lawyers are _the_ problem in this country. 
They need to be completely abolished, or rather, their reason for choosing that
career path needs to be marginalized so, like banking and finance, only those
who really want to do it, actually enter it.

The test could be "Did your parents persuade you to go into Law?" 
If you answer yes, you automatically flunk the Bar exam.
 
We need the Australian form of liability in the U.S.

Simply because we (you?) can't comprehend how the new system will work is no
reason to fantasy about how it will adversely impact you.

As I've said, the congressional Bill is a P.O.S. and is a reason to vote out
everyone who's been in there since 2000 or earlier. But that doesn't mean a good
program is not needed.

Obviously the Insurance Companies have become like the Investment
Banking/Mortgage companies were (are?). They all suck and will someday soon cost
you trillions in bailout money. 

Is there something wrong with a government option to provide insurance? 
How is doing that going to take something away from what you already have?
It won't.

Many States (I think there were 18 of them at last count) already provide this
kind of healthcare option (and by the way "healthcare"="Health insurance" and
nothing more). It works pretty well.

Are there those that abuse the system? Sure, but most of them went to work for
the Banking industry.

"A huge piece of that cost is for Doctor's liability insurance w/o which they 
cannot hope to practice.......This Huge part of the healthcare "expense" is 
NOT a healthcare "problem", it's a legal problem that we can stack right up 
there next to the other GAZILLION legal problems plaguing this nation."

And what profession do 90% (guess) of the politicians come from????

Oh!  I do have a thought about the healthcare problem in the USofA too.  The 
talk about the huge expense of it, seems to consistantly leave out a piece 
that I think is rather large and perhaps delibertly ignored.

A huge piece of that cost is for Doctor's liability insurance w/o which they 
cannot hope to practice. I've personally lost a doctor here in CA because they 
could no longer or were just tired of paying the exorbinate expense, and they 
moved to Florida!  

This Huge part of the healthcare "expense" is NOT a healthcare "problem", it's 
a legal problem that we can stack right up there next to the other GAZILLION 
legal problems plaguing this nation.  It's a freaking mountain of b***s***.

So, just maybe, if we identify these issues, put them in the right baskets, 
then we can solve them; instead of this popular but largely ineffective 
approach of flapping about the wrong issues, and blame naming.

> Funny how those who don't want a Healthcare plan, use the "I don't want a
> government bureaucrat between me and my Doctor" argument. Do they even realize
> how absolutely stupid that sounds to someone with a 3-digit IQ?

I want a healthcare plan (mine is pretty good right now), but not run by a new
government plan. Guess my IQ must be below 3 digits huh? If we throw 40+ million
new people into the system, the system spikes and the time it take me and my
kids to get a doctor appt goes from a week or 2 to months. I guess we'll all be
going to the ER to see a doctor sooner, not just the uninsured. And when
insurance companies get underpaid by Uncle Sam, those insurance companies will
charge more for employer's plans, which cuts into profits at which point
employers dump their plans and force another 80+ million onto the gov't plan. 

Uncle Sam can't manage Social Security or the National Debt or balancing a
budget so I highly doubt they would get nationalized healthcare right either.

Chris

As far as I see it, it's 6 of 1 or half a dozen of the other.  In the UK you 
do have a government bureaucrat deciding what the budget for a hospital is for 
the year.  The cost of each operation is calculated and the hospital will 
determine how many of each type it can afford to perform.  If there's a 100 
car pile up on the local highway then the life saving measures performed on 
those injured will reduce that available budget for non-life saving treatment, 
and unless the government decides to provide emergency funding to cover it all 
the hospital will bump some of those non-critical patients to next year.  But 
in the US I have an insurance pencil pusher between me and my doctor.  So 
where's the improvement??

I have heard recently that about 96% of the US population (at any given time) 
has health insurance, and of them about 84% are happy with their health 
coverage.  That is they're generally happy with the treatment they receive - 
but probably B&M about the costs rising each year.  People are scared of 
changes, they're worried that any replacement will not be as good as what they 
have now.  Given that sort of support is the government really going to rock 
that boat - screw up health coverage and lose votes (remembering that a 
politicians #1 goal in life is to get reelected).

Now also we have, any moment now, the entirety of congress and 1/3 of the 
senate are about to start their political campaigns for election 2010 (kind of 
surprised the republican presidental run isn't already in full swing), and the 
costs involved to run them, brings us side 2 of the equation.  Politicians are 
for the most part whores, and will take vast sums of money from anyone willing 
to donate.  We have politicians on both sides who are nicely in the pockets of 
the health insurance corporations who also don't want a government run health 
system.  So now we're hearing that any sort of government run option is 
definitely not on the books.  There may be the requirement for anyone 
breathing to have health insurance (like anyone who chooses to own and drive a 
car must have auto insurance), nicely providing for those obcene insurance 
corporation profits.

So given all this I don't expect anything worthwhile to come out of 
the "health insurance scare of 2009", in much the same way as nothing really 
came out of the "illegal immigrant scare of 2006" - sure they passed a bill to 
build a fence, and when all the hoohar quieted down they just didn't fund it.  
So today we have a healthcare system that the majority are happy enough with 
their coverage, don't want to lose, insurance corporations that like huge 
profits and don't want to lose them, and politicians who like their jobs and 
don't want to lose them either.  So we the people will get some half-assed 
legislation that will satisfy a few, the "news" organisations will praise the 
politicians for working so hard to get the scraps they give us, and isn't it 
sad that they were unable to do more.  The insurance corporations will 
increase their hold over the health system, the politicians (for the most 
part) will keep their jobs.  And in truth nothing will really get fixed...

I would add, having pride in something does not mean you think it's perfect or 
that you do/won't see it's faults and critique it, try to make it better.

One can have pride in one's country and still realize there are failures and 
work at making things better.

>>because I still have pride in mine


Herein lies the actual, singular PROBLEM with the U.S.; people who think like
this allow all the other problems to occur.

The U.S. isn't your child at a School track meet. If they come in last, saying
"You did a great job" works for the child, but not for the Country.

If you are not diappointed in this country then you're either a Socialist or
UnAmerican or listen to Rush Limbaugh and had a Limbaugh-otomy. 

You want to solve problems and make this nation truly great? Then do two things:

1) Don't ONLY disparage this nation but provide constructive criticism. 
2) Don't ONLY praise this nation no matter how it handle everything. 

Or in Programmer-oriented "Positive Logic":

1) Critic this nation when it needs it.
2) Complement it when/where is does something truly great.
 

The child who is always praised--told that they did a great job, no matter what
their results are, has no idea what a great job really means. They grow up
thinking everything they do is great, even when it is down-right horrible. 

The child who is always told they are stupid grows up questioning everything
they do--lack of self-confidence typically.


The solution, Be Honest with yourself American. 
If you're last in something, don't say "I love my country", that's just a denial
of reality--avoiding the truth. Say "I'm ashamed that we spend all this money on
XYZ and it failed. Let's think about how we can do this better."



Funny how those who don't want a Healthcare plan, use the "I don't want a
government bureaucrat between me and my Doctor" argument. Do they even realize
how absolutely stupid that sounds to someone with a 3-digit IQ?


Oh, and one caveat, I agree: We need to revise the "Tax the Churches" thing and
make it Tax all current Tax Except Organizations.  Oh, and Fish, taxation has no
barring on a voice in political policy. Only your vote does, and as far as I
know, they already get to vote.

Edit:

Doesn't *stop* one . . .

Wooooooo . . . hold your horsies here guys.  Let's not get our feathers all in 
a fluff, ok?

Please.  No one's country is perfect, by a long shot . . . there are so many 
things that need to be figured out and put to rights in this world; but that 
doesn't one from being proud of the things we have accomplished.

Muehe: You wrote: "And please do not hold up your country as a shining example
of what we should do, because I still have pride in mine."

Let me get this straight: You're actually proud of the fact that 46 million
Americans are not covered by any form of health insurance and face potential
financial ruin if they get sick?

There are degrees of socialism -- nothing is black and white.

As for what percentage the US spends on health care, my top 3 reason why (in 
order): Legal system, we are fat, and deadbeats. 

And please do not hold up your country as a shining example of what we should 
do, because I still have pride in mine.

Basticar: I'm no economist. But from what I understand, with a major national
debt and huge trade deficit, the United States risks a severe devaluation of its
currency. No one anywhere in the world really wants that, but sooner or later,
the imbalances in the system have to be addressed.

Hmmmm there's that deficit word popping up again.  You know, ages ago when I 
was just starting college, I had an economics class that spent a lot of time 
on that subject; but nowhere else did I hear it talked about.

All the politicians talked about a budget deficit, but noone ever really 
mentioned the national deficit and it seemed like most people didn't even know 
about, or understand what it was.

Now, suddenly it seems that's all anyone talks about :-/

. . . and I wonder, well perhaps it's my dark side that tosses up these  scary 
thoughts, but I seriously have concerns, what if we can't pay it back *OR* 
what if our "future generation" decides not to pay it back?  O..o

I mean, what is the collateral, if we don't pay what happens; war?
Who is it we actually pay and what the heck are they going to do with ALL that 
money???

10%???  and how much extra is "hidden" for you to see.

it's simple ~ if you want it, work for it.

personally, I don't understand the legally making the hospital ER's take care 
of those who can't...

Medicare and Medicaid can't pay their bills now...

Muehe: Regarding health care, your country has a limited form of government run
health-care, and yet overall, your people spend 16% of the nations GDP on health
care. And still, 46 million Americans are not covered by any form of health
insurance, and have to pay out of pocket for all health care expenses. 

In contrast, all 33 million Canadians are covered, and yet we pay %10 of GDP on
health care. And (as I pointed out earlier) our national debt is about a third
of the US national debt. 

Do you see anything wrong with this picture, eh?

(BTW, no one considers Canada a "socialist" nation.)

Yes, goverment run health care is socialism. 
a portion of the population has always been for socialism. It is a never ending 
battle to fight it.

and that is exactly what i am saying. I do not want it and i do not want me or 
my kinds to pay for it.

Muehe: "Socialism"? Many Americans seem to enjoy bandying that word about to
criticize things they don't like. For example, is government funded health care
"socialism"? If so, then practically every other western industrial nation in
the world is overrun by "socialism".

As Bob has suggested earlier, the fundamental problem facing your country (and
others to lesser extents) is that people want services from their government but
they want others to pay for them. 

Face it: Someone has to pay. If you don't want to pay now, you (and your kids)
will pay later -
with interest.

(Another big problem is a massive trade deficit. I'm not economist, so I have no
idea which problem is worse.)

I do not think taxing more is the answer (me, churches,  or rich people). It is 
the whole socialist movement that is going on in our country.  It might be 
humane but it also promotes mediocrity by its very existence.  

Reminds me when I was younger. I use to work as much overtime as possible (back 
when I was hourly) – after a month where I only had 3 days off I realize that 
the extra money was being taxed so heavily that I felt like I was being 
penalized.  I was not worth it.  At least that is how I perceived it at the 
time – and perception, not fact, rules. 

Go ahead and tax ALL entities.  I just want my kids to get vouchers to help me 
pay for that "private" education if this great land decides to do that.

Funny how "public" schools who can't seem to educate kids properly, have loads 
of taxpayer money to fund the latest and greatest sports complex.

I agree with point 4 and entitlements should go away completely.

Regarding taxation of churches, I have mixed feelings. First, it should be noted
that I am not a church-goer. I suppose I could be described as a liberal,
humanist, Unitarian atheist.

Consider the church closest to my home, a Presbyterian church. On Monday
mornings, it hosts a group of new mothers. It gives them an opportunity to
connect with other new mothers, as well as providing a place for their
pre-school children to play with each other. On Wednesday evening and Thursday
mornings, Weight-Watchers groups meet there. 

Or consider the LDS church. Their collection of genealogical records is open to
everyone, not just LDS members.

My point is that many churches provide useful service to the community without
regard to church affiliation, just like schools, libraries and community centers.

I suppose a useful balance would be to tax churches, but provide exemptions for
services provided that would otherwise be a cost to municipal taxpayers.

If churches are taxed then churches will have the right to discuss elections 
and candidates running for office.  Of course, I feel they already have that 
right to discuss and infulence elections.  But if they are forced to pay taxes 
then they will have this right for sure.

I also believe that if Churches that have schools pay taxes, should also 
qualify to received the same government funding as public schools.

Why not tax other non-profitable organizations like Red Cross, Salvation Army, 
etc.?  

Of course I don't believe that this should happen...if churches are taxed then 
they will not be able to help the community as much as they do today.  Maybe 
tax only the denominations that are involved in politics...the Catholic church 
(the pope) is involved in politics all around the world.

I LIKE the idea to tax churches! They have a cash flow that is astounding and
pay NO taxes. Look at the LARGE buildings and grounds around your local
"charity" church and see where the $ is going. There is one going up in our
area that would rival a fortune 500 headquarters. Separation of church and state
does not mean freedom from taxes that they enjoy. The amendment reads that the
gov't shall not pass a law that keeps them from worshiping. It does not state
anything about not taxing them. See comment in Luke 20 verses 24 and 25

The only way the U.S. Debt is paid back is via tax surpluses. Its been 10 years
since we had a annual surplus. There were two Presidents in the last 40 years
where in were in office during a surplus period, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. 

Typically what happens is the "party" out of power calls the ones in power "tax
and spenders" (a Regan-era term) even if there are surpluses. But then when
elected, double the National Debt. This isn't a strictly Republican created debt
situation, but in recent years, it seems to be. 

Today, we see 6 months of a new President and yet, a budget that was enacted in
2008 is somehow "his record debt". Its the congress's debt. 

But at the end of the day, it is our debt and it has to stop.

But it will never stop. We won't do what is needed due to groups like the
"Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Republican Studies" or LIARS for short.

These are those who believe they and their beliefs are just and those who have
different views are unAmerican. But it is truly them who defines the term
unamerican.

You really want to fix your debt or just use it to point blame at someone else
when it is all of us who allowed the debt to occur. You say that he or she
created it, well, we all did. 

You want to fix it, here are 4 ideas that will actually have a significant
impact on it.

1) Tax Churches.
2) Cut Defense Spending by 70%.
3) Cut entitlements by 95%.
4) Regular Lawyer/Attorney fees.

You want something even simpler? Limit government spending to a total of $1
Trillion/year.

But we won't because if they keep us arguing about Health Care, and CASH FOR
CLUNKERS, we won't have the energy to react to the $1.3 Trillion deficit
this year.

Hans, my family owes $190,170.00 on the US National Debt. Someone stop the
ride, I wanna get off, I'm getting sick...

Hans,

I don't like cutting back on things that contribute to the Human Mind, "forced
handouts" yes, cut those, but not other things.

Having said that, and I thought I had indicated such, that NASA as it is, is a
waste of life/career for more than 30,000 people (counting only those working on
Shuttle). I see no purpose in that kind of thing.

But if going to Jupiter (or the next star) in 10 years requires us to invent
things we haven't even thought of yet, then let's do it. But not in the "NASA
Way" let's do it like they did in the 1960s.  Spitfire, seat of the pants
testing and then invent the stuff we don't have. 

This hand holding so that no more rockets blow up with people on them is noble,
but not necessary and actually not progressive. That's how things are seemingly
done today. Sure the two Shuttle tragedies hurt me too, I am a founding member
and benefactor of the Challenger Center for Space Science research. So I know
what that kind of thing does to people. But at the end of the day... it is worth
it; and the people that died believed so as well, and were willing to take that
chance. 

Certainly I'm not saying let's be careless, but I am certainly one of many who
are sick and tired of all the waiting. And after all this time, I certainly
don't want to see the same movie I saw 40 years ago.

Hans, you're off by $34 per person but I'll let it slide! ;o)

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Ringer: If my math is correct, that's about $38,000 per person. 

(In comparison, in Canada, the national debt is about $14,000 per person.
During the early 2000's, the Canadian national debt was significantly paid down.)

Bob wrote: "Only then will technology be pushed enough to pay back the cost in
spin-offs."

Are you serious, Bob? I read an analysis from about, oh, 20 years ago that
concluded that, of all the claimed NASA spinoffs, only about half a dozen could
legitimately be traced back to NASA.

One fundamental problem with using potential spinoffs as a justification for
manned space programs is that you don't know what the potential spinoff could
be. If you're going to spend billions of dollars anyways, you might as well
spend it on things where you know that the money will have a definite targeted
benefit. Such as research on curing or treating diseases. Or on improving
education. Or on improving living conditions.

I'm not totally against manned spaceflight. But considering other priorities,
and considering the current financial situation of your nation, manned
spaceflight has to take a back seat. Let NASA step back and let private
companies get on with it.

> Considering how much your country is in debt... 

USA National debt on:
Jan 20, 2009: $ 10.644 Trillion 
Aug 10, 2009  $ 11.650 Trillion

We piled on a trillion bucks in 6 1/2 months. Zoom baby! Thanks a lot Congress. 

Chris

I agree with Quinlan. But I also don't have much interest in the U.S. going to
Mars. personally, I want to go to Mars, but we should, as a country (world?) be
heading to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. Only then will technology be pushed
enough to pay back the cost in spin-offs.

Going back to the Moon, while I personally would do that, is more digging a hole
and filling it back up by some of the brightest people on Earth. Sadly, like
IBM, these engineer's at Nasa have a horrible corporate marketing team. They
take something that is exciting and make it as boring as possible. 

You wanna get rid of online PORN? Put NASA in charge of running it; people will
be bored out of their minds.

Welllllll . . . if they are printing money to pay off failing financial 
institutions and companies, against my wishes; so why not do the same for 
something I DO want :p

"We shoukd go back to the moon and take more doctored photos" - Now you're 
talking.  

"Hmmm, how about financing? Considering how much your country is in debt right
now, how do you expect to pay for a manned spaceflight program?"  - Easy, 
after Iraq go for Iran. There's plenty of oil to pay for it...

Marty

Quinlan asked: "what are we waiting for !!"

Hmmm, how about financing? Considering how much your country is in debt right
now, how do you expect to pay for a manned spaceflight program?

The Starship Enterprize of course. 

If we build it; we can go :)

But seriuosly folks We should go to Mars and Beyond,,,what are we waiting 
for !!

/bonks Quinlan with her Epic Snakey Staff
/glare

We shoukd go back to the moon and take more doctored photos

i vote for "Let's Play Asteroids"

if we have water (ice) and no gravity. Seems like the place to start to me.

The President's Human Space Flight Review panel is due to make a 
recommendation to the president before the end of this month.  

Here's a quick review and a place you can vote your own opinion:

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/08/nasa-its-your-move-mr-president/