Free Republic

That is the crux of the matter, insurance insulates the consumers from the actual costs leading to an apathetic attitude about the actual accounting.

This is most applicable in terms of office visit charges and prescriptions.

What does the consumer care if the doctor charges $50 or $250 for a consultation if it only costs the patient $15 or $25 either way? In an open market situation where prices are discussed up front (unless the $250 doctor provides some tangible add-on benefit) people would stop going to him.

Same principle with pharmacies. Suppose Eckerds charges $200 for Augmentum and Walmart sells it for $100 (actual case!) and the prescription plan says patient pays $25 for name-brand either way. Consumer has no incentive to shop around, Eckerd pockets an extra $100 bucks (just for being jerks!) and insurance carrier foots the bill. Even in my case where I would pay 30% the $100 difference is only $30 to me. Whereas in most cases the difference is between $10 and $20 dollars, which means big money to full payers but barely worth the gas, time and phone-calls for those with insurance.

Just for your education here are typical charges:

Doctor visit: $40 to $100
Generic drugs: $10 to $200 per month or course
Name brand: $30 to $300 per month or course
ER visit: $200 to $1000
Hospital stay: $800 to $2000 per day
Lab work: $200 to $1000
X-rays/sono's: $300 to $1000
Biopsies: $300 to $500 each
Office surgery: $200 to $500 each
Out-patient surg:$500 to $3000
Surgery: $3000 and up
Neo-natal care: $1000
Birth (natural) $3000 to $5000
Birth (ceas) $5000 to $10,000

My personal experiences, regional differences and inflation do take their toll.

To think I was planning on getting un-insured next year on purpose..........and they drag me back in!!!!!!

The system is defective and tax dollars will only make it worse.....much worse.

The fix is this:

1. Americans need to be educated about healthcare and learn what constitutes an emergency and what medical problems deserve addressing

2. People need to stop expecting medical treatment and drugs to fix things their crappy self destructive life-styles cause.

3. We need to stop the practice of administering tons of anti-biotics to HEALTHY livestock.

4. Doctors need to be shielded from litigation for simple lapses of professional judgement (ie being human) or not identifying the most obscure of possibilities. How many have been subjected to tests or x-rays "just in case" to be followed by a condescending "I knew it was nothing".

5. Put doctors who make the grossest and stupidest mistakes (accidentally removing the wrong organ or limb) out of business for life.

6. Get insurance out of the "health management" business. The doctors and hospitals could cut their labor overhead by 5-30% if their BS (paperwork) was eliminated. Those savings could be passed onto the patients.

7. The government (medicare & medicaid) is the worst paperwork/red tape of all insurers. Even worse, the least likely to pay also.

8. Insurance discourages wellness visits, few pay for preventative/alternative treatments (flu shots, weight-loss, vitimins, etc.) and causes undo financial hardship for their subscribers.

Here's my gripe:

I pay $8,500 a year for health insurance not inclusive of dental (another waste to be eliminated tomorrow).

Then I pay $1,000 for a deductable, $25 for co-pays, $10 or 30% for generic and $20 or 30% for name brand.

My family averages about two ER visits a year.
I pay for one the insurance pays for the other.
I pay 30% (or more) of all doctor visits and prescriptions.
I pay 100% for flu shots.
I pay 100% for vitimins.
I get one free visit to the optomitrist.
I pay 50% for glasses
I pay 100% for my wife's contacts.

So for $8,500 I'm suppose to get peace of mind and they'll pay for one ER visit and discount my doctor and drug visits by 70% and give me a $40 visit to an optomitrist and frames for my glasses.

Or I can keep the money and go anywhere I want and need only consider tracking it for tax purposes.

The US had similar problems when it "liberated" Cuba from Spanish rule in the Spanish-American war just over 100 years ago. We ultimately ended up engaging the very same tactics that the Spanish used trying to maintain control.

Democracy is only possible in a stable and reasonably civil society. Iraq is not only unstable, their seems to be ample evidence that there are a lot of unbalanced people to boot. How do you engage in rational debate with people willing to cut gashes in their own children's heads?! Even knowing the hospitals are short of anti-biotics and wound dressings!

I doubt the Arabs are really worried about democracy spilling over into their territories. OPEC is clearly worried about $10-15 barrels of oil though, which will hurt the oil industry also.

Seems kind of odd, that money would be found behind fake walls.

I can only presume our forces are searching these palaces with a fine toothed comb in the hope Saddam is hidden in a secret closet or basement or something.

Very strange that the "suicide bombers", Iraq claiming to have thousands, have disappeared. Lost of will? A bald fabrication? Sudden desire to live again? Left their jackets behind and disappeared..........maybe they found a cash stash too?

Booby-trapped tables constituting terrorist intent? Most any country with a reasonably sophisticated intelligence apparatus will have similar projects in similar labs. I bet our CIA has way cooler stuff at their disposal.

So Atta picked up the spores from the Iraqi agents, who in turn, smuggled in Prague from Iraq, who refined the spores from anthrax bacteria that they acquired in Texas.

Then Atta proceeded to drop his anthrax letters into a mailbox in Newark on the way to the airport (did he go to Boston or DC?) from where he took his one way ride to hell with visions of crop-dusters dancing in his head.

In the meantime the CIA, FBI, NSA and customs obviously had their thumbs up their asses. Discover calls me anytime I use my card more than 25 miles from my house while those four can't account for multi-thousand dollar wire transfers and numerous transatlantic flights to people on expired visas attending American flight schools acquiring anthrax spores from Iraqi agents in the Czech Republic.

Meanwhile, bin Laden is nailed not only for financing Atta, but choosing the targets and listening to the news in anticipation of the attacks.

But you are saying Saddam facilitated everything regarding 9/11 and the anthrax. I think the sting from this article is you are among the 45% that the story purports are "mislead".

Our own scientists determined that the anthrax had a domestic source. Iraq's capabilities would have resulted in much cruder and less effective spores.

In fact the entire investigation has inexplicitly halted and is getting cold.

Foreign involvement in 9/11 seems limited to cells in Germany and Spain for coordination and the use of nationals from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Saddam's proven "terrorism activity" is limited to internal Iraqi oppression (of which he shares this distinction with at least 12 other countries) and support for the Palestinian intifada.

Al Qaeda and bin Laden were responsible for 9/11, plain and simple, remember? Or are you going to admit we were stupid and reckless enough to invade the WRONG country?

#1 I am not Canada and am not a Canadian citizen.

#2 Nothing is proven. Even when he did use those WMD he had, the US didn't care at the time (even under the enlightened guidance of Reagan). Saddam's is a secular regime in opposition to fundamentalism as opposed to the "theocratic" regimes of Iran and the former Afghanistan.

#3 The US cut off the inspections just now, not Iraq. And it is unreasonable to demand a nation disarm unilaterally while piling troops on its borders. A lot of people on this site would imply the US government spending less than 15% of its budget on military constitutes radical disarmament. I can see Bush willing to submit to the UN an accounting of our entire military inventory and infrastucture - NOT!

#4 The things the inspectors found: A missile type that travel 110 miles, a balsa wood RC airplane, empty chemical artillery shells, etc. Oooooooh SCARY!

#5 Inaccurate accounting of weapons? Like our military is the paradigm of accounting perfection. It would take us five years to create a report half as accurate as the one Iraq had to submit in five weeks. You don't recall a couple of years ago where the Pentagon couldn't account for Billions of dollars. Money is ten times easier to manage than material.

#6 Rant all you want. The arguments for war are circular and based on preconceived assumptions.

#7 Furthermore the arguments are moot. We are at war and there is no turning back now without making us look like cowards. The rationale is now beside the point.

#8 Hopefully in the end, we do a better job of changing Iraq's government than we did the LAST time. Our efforts in Afghanistan don't appear promising thus far, Karzai is a GREAT mayor ain't he.

I guess in your anger against Canada you forgot that Mexico (a voting member of the Security Council that refused to endorse our resolution) is equally opposed to the Iraq conflict.

Remember the legal concept of "innocent till proven guilty".

America's demand for Saddam to prove his innocense ran contrary to logic and reasonability. The inspectors found nothing, our "proof" turned out to be forged and our intelligence that we supplied to the inspectors was called worthless crap.

Then Bush claims the critical evidence will jeapardize our "intelligence sources". What value would they be after we ream Saddam? Are these soon to be obsolete sources more valuable than international approval, support and legitimacy? I think not.

Now that we are in Iraq, why are we not seizing the "weapons sites" to prove our case instead of going directly for Baghdad where the proving ground could be hundreds or thousands of dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians?

Don't tell me we can't raid those compounds to get the proof we need and/or want. Saddam is a despicable excuse for a human, but the case for war just for his sake is flimsy. Particularly in light of the fact that the dictators of Cuba, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, etc...go unscathed.

Count on Canada against real enemies such as China or North Korea. But don't expect them to be yes-men for every little international irritation. Its like cursing your neighbor for snubbing a demand that they bring in your groceries for you after they helped you move in and unpack.

Immigration is not directly Canada's fault, the fault lies in its membership in the British Commonwealth headed by non other than the UK (our gracious ally). Most Canadians would prefer not to have the influx of refugees from India and Pakistan.

Canada: Peacefully co-existed with America for almost 140 years. The other side of the longest non-militarized border on the planet.

France: Helped America gain independence by direct participation, trade and declaring war with Britain. Allied with America in WWI, WWII and Cold War. True there were the Vichy, but the French people clearly were not on Germany's side due to presence of active underground resistance and a joyous liberation.

But then the terrorists weren't "refugees" were they? They came directly as "well heeled" students and workers and coordinated their attacks in Spain and Germany. But let's not let facts get in the way.

Go ahead and put your faith in those quasi-fascist states of Italy and Spain who didn't send their division(s) over to Iraq either.

If Canada is so insignificant, why its support, or lack thereof, so important to America (or you folks for that matter) then?

Canada and France are true friends. Go ahead and put Spain, Italy, Poland and Bulgaria above them for supporting us on this adventure. The return on such diplomatic endeavors will be anemic at best.

The last time we didn't have Canada's hearty endorsement was in Vietnam. What a lot of good we did there. Friends will be your cheerleaders no matter what you do, true friends will point out your folly.

I agree. I'd like to add that this anti-Canada and anti-French crap is counterproductive and stupid
"Canada backed the war with Iraq, provided the UN Security Council approved it"

What more needs to be said? So their politicians keep their promises.

"never apologize for Canada being a sovereign state" - damn straight!

"The US action is right and just" Really, prove it. Even with CIA and satellite intelligence Bush can't. Is it WMD or liberation or terrorism. The liberation argument only rose up a month ago. Saddam's been in charge for 20 years, it didn't bother Reagan who aided Saddam in his fight against Iran. Bush Sr. had his chance, Clinton didn't care.



"We respect the opinions of just nations, even if we do not agree with them" - No we don't, we couldn't get nine members of the Security Council to agree with us to go to war. We do respect however China's opinion that Taiwan is a "rogue province". We also respect the opinions of the equally oppresive Saudi government in how our soldiers stationed there conduct themselves.

"We aid all peoples of the globe, even those who openly despise us" A quarter going to Israel and another quarter going to Egypt. Prior to 9/11, to the Taliben. Alot to Pakistan, much to Russia

"we are not motivated by moral relativism or political expediency" - what about when Clinton was president? I thought he was the king of moral relativism?

When faced with an undeniably proper path, we will walk it, even if it means we must do it alone! We know right
from wrong, and good from evil, and we will not hinge our leadership blindly and wholly to what others think." Is that why we have the highest incarceration rates in the free world?

"We go to liberate Iraq because it is the RIGHT THING
TO DO, not because the UN or anyone else said its ok. We do not walk hat in hand when faced with Evil asking for others to sanctify our cause, and up until recently we did not believe that Canada did either. Sadly we found that French-Canadian has far more to do with being French than being Canadian… but somehow I think most Canadians already knew that." Since when do Americans define patriotism and pride for Canadians?

"where will Canada be? Will she be standing shoulder to
shoulder with the coalition? Proud for helping to make the world a better place? Or like most of the nations of Europe post WWII will you be holding your head in shame as the truth about what you decided to let slide comes out? I know that I will be able to look myself in the mirror at the end of the day. Oh Canada, will you be able to?"

And what if they don't materialize? By all accounts they don't exist. If he has them, he'll use them. In all likelyhood that day would have been today or yesterday but nothing has transpired. Most likely that day won't come.

Save your vitriol for the Saddam and his armies. Canada will likely save its resources for any real threats that crop up, such as North Korea or a new wave of international terrorism. Oh and the French know terrorism, they've dealt with it for decades........compared to the French, most Americans don't know jack about terrorism.

Stupid question:

What is the "natural order of things in D.C."?

I don't think they have any other choice.

From an electoral strategy standpoint, they have no chance of winning most anything west of the Mississippi River, with the exceptions of Arkansas, Iowa, Minnisota, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and California in which they do very well. This is good for them as this is a somewhat "rich" resource of electoral votes. The GOP has a lock on pretty much everything else with such notable states as: Texas, Arizona and Colorado.

The democrats have noone to field in Texas that can beat Texan Bush and since the West is evenly divided electorally there is no incentive to look west.

The only time democrats have won the presidency since 1960 is to field a southerner (albeit a southerner for vice-president).

With Gore out of the way (who is a lost cause because he couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee anyway) the only one so far presented is John Edwards. Although it appears he probably wouldn't carry his own state either.

So what'll be the plan? Go with Edwards and hope he can carry North Carolina and maybe South Carolina and split the South just enough to squeak a win or go with a northerner or midwesterner and concentrate really hard on winning Missouri and Florida.

I think it would be a tall order to make any nation submit such a list anyway. Lower ranking ultra-nationalists wouldn't be keen to provide such information to a hostile foreign power ready to pounce on their own nation. One would expect they would think obeying such a command would constitute treason.

Such programs are so secretive and with such convoluted command chains it would be difficult for even Saddam to get the exact inventory for himself. Having Russia as their model for accounting military surplus could hardly help.

The decision becomes: lay bare all such information and get pummeled by an enemy that knows everything or hide it just long enough to inflict heavy casualties on the invading army that pummels them anyway.

If war is deemed inevitable either way, he'll take option two.

If there is any legitimate desire for a peaceful resolution to this, it is well concealed.

I feel for our soldiers who'll likely be going into that hole to route out that desperate rabid badger, especially my brother, a nephew and a close friend.

Nothing is more dangerous than a cornered and desperate beast.

Now that one was a trip. I left downtown Ft. Worth at 5:30 about 30 minutes before it stuck only to go home in SW Arlington to have another of those boogers fly directly over my head before it touched down 2 miles eastward.

I noticed that wind currents can be a good indicator of an approaching tornado. The entire west side of my house is a paved driveway (bad news from an air-conditioning standpoint). As the storm approached from the west the drive was virtually dry (as the shear from the east was so strong the house blocked rain from hitting it!)

When the vortex passed, the rain/wind suddenly slammed the north side of the house like you wouldn't believe. I'd swear if it was any bit stronger it would have blown in the windows.

No spectacular noise until just a moment before the wind shift.

Ran into another on my way home this spring. Driving home on SW 287 towards Arlington through unbelievable rain. (No word on the radio of course). I then realize its directional, I go further and it shifts direction plus hail and I think oh #$%@!. Then worse, I keep going it all stops and I look to the SSW and see a funnel cloud and to the SE traffic is jammed. Now the radio announces a tornado warning! I decided that I would rather intercept the wall cloud on my terms rather than sit and wait in its path.

Heavy praying and aggressive maneuvering and I end up driving directly under boiling clouds that I would swear were at best 500 feet above me. If that tornado had decided to strike the highway at that bottleneck, I'd bet 100s would've been killed, including possibly me.

Lessons to be learned:

Don't count on the media to inform you of a tornado.

Watch for horizontal rain, especially with hail.

Be very wary of a sudden abatement of precipitation - look up (if you dare).

A sudden and dramatic shift in wind/precipitation direction can indicate you are in the path of a tornado.

If it seems the sun has set two or more hours early, a supercell is likely in your midst.

Birth father takes precedent over any uncle, etc. unless someone can prove the father is negligent, abusive or unaccounted for.

I'm hardly a "Hollywood lefty". My contention is we don't have the right to tell other people how to lead themselves. Heck if we didn't get our meddling hands into Cuba in the first place, Castro would be a non-entity.

I have no problem with us be the "world's policeman" but behaving like the world's mother-in-law is crossing the line.

Sending Elian back was the just thing to do. The Clintons mistake was to allow the issue to drag out and get ugly.

I hardly said that ALL exiled Cubans are ex-millionaires. On the other hand, why does such a small group of people get to make such a vocal and influential impact on the federal psyche?

Most all dictators (communist or not) have used murder: Saddam, Castro, Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet, etc. Among our biggest trading partners are China and Saudi Arabia and we don't lift a finger or raise a whisper about their faults. I'd be shocked if you believe they don't murder their citizens. Never mind the aid we provided to the Taliben all the way up until September 11th and to Saddam up until he invaded Kuwait. What is it that makes Castro so special - except a living testiment to a major US intelligence screw up?

It wouldn't hurt or change anything here in a discernable way to end our blockade of Cuba. If we want to defeat Castro we have to give the Cubans a chance to prosper and let them figure out it is Castro holding them back for themselves.

I don't buy into either facade.

Castro is clearly not as good as his fans make him out to be but he is also not half as bad as his detractors make him out to be.

Everyone pretends that Cuba's borders are closed (much like North Korea's) but they are not. The closure is from our end, not theirs. We are the ones who limit travel, commerce and communications with Cuba and its inhabitants, not Castro.

Terrorism? What, where and when is this allegation supported or demonstrated?

Narcotics trafficking? With such limited travel and commerce, we probably have more smuggled in from Belgium!

I think much of it revolves around a bunch of exiled millionaires bitter about losing their estates/plantations more than 40 years ago.

Now its for $10,100.

"That would be expensive."

.......and dangerous. Like we would want to park one in Yemen and see if our sailors can achieve a modicum of relief or relaxation in port there.

Every terrorist within 1,000 miles would converge on that port within days.

Israel would be almost as risky, except the ships would be safe.