What else is there to say? Well said.

Wow....

Because providing for a common defense is written into the Constitution, while taking care of citizens' every need (and want) is not.

When taxocrat FDR decided to rewrite the Constitution in the 1940s to falsely imply government may spend on anything it wanted with no restrictions, he brokered a deal with the devil. That bureaucrat-run devil appeared to bail everyone out then (altho it's more and more evident that "government help" prolonged the Depression) just as the mafia appears to provide "protection" for those it bleeds.

The devil has been running wylde for 60 years now, and the huge, tyrannical government the South feared during Civil War days is now a dangerous reality. For every liberal pissed about spending on missiles and bombs, there's a conservative pissed at 9 billion lost PER YEAR on Medicare fraud.

Put another way, a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have, and will do so sooner than later.

A question for the Keebler Elf of Communism: if government does things more cheaply and efficiently than private enterprise, why stop with just taking over health care? Just take over everything like the soviets did. Oh, wait...

Now hating on me for revealing to you these grim truths, that the Wizard of Oz is really just a bumbling but well-meaning fool behind a curtain, is a waste of time. You don't have to believe as I do, but until you stop believing government is the Savior and start understanding job creation and defending liberty lies in those grasping things at the ends of your arms, you are screwed. WE are screwed. I raise my beer to you...

QM, as a conservative, wouldn't you agree that too much is being spent on foreign wars? The amount of money being poured into that is far beyond anything being thrown at medicaid/medicare. If those numbers went down and was refunded to the tax payers, would you not be happy about it?

I would happily give up medicare/aid if the wars were cut as well. If people could figure out to handle their own money, that would be far preferable.

OH NO! 9 BILLION per YEAR!!!! What ever shall we do? At least some of that goes towards HELPING people instead of KILLING them.

Why not stop spending HUNDREDS of BILLIONS per year on the "defense" farce that continues to murder people in our name around the world. What about the 3 trillion dollars STOLEN outright by bush administration friends and cronies at Halliburton? Where the fuck do morons like you get your priorities? You are so fucking clueless. Go take a dive in a wood chipper.

Yeah, in the middle of this big, titanic, drawn out bitch fest and bellyache over a health care plan that will spend about $90 billion a year and is more than paid for with taxes, we passed a $680 billion dollar defense appropriations bill for next year that goes straight onto the deficit, and people didn't even bat an eyelash.

There's always money to kill people, or bail out big business's bad bets, but never a dime to try to save people's lives.

A few months ago, the Boston Globe published an editorial comment on health care. Specificially, it was in regards to Mass Health (one of the health care models Democrats have been using as a test stage for a national process). Proponents of health care in Massachusetts (which state did you really think Mass Health was in?), said it would be a HUGE burden on Joe Taxpayer. That the cost would rise dramatically, and bankrupt the Massachusetts goverment inside ten years. To add further, would simply be, to give additional evidence of thier tactic: FEAR. Yes, they were and still are, afraid. They are afraid not just which they dont understand. They are afraid those that learn of them, will vote for the other guy in the next election.

The editorial, said that, for the 2010 MA Budget, was pretty high. Billions of dollars to run everything from schools, police, road maintence....to health care (97% of the total MA residents have health care coverage). Yet, as it was pointed out, the total cost of Mass Health, was $88 million. The editor said this was 5/8ths of 1% of the total bill.

The Federal budget, for 2010, is $4.3 TRILLION dollars. This health care bill, is said to be $980 million. Any 'sane', 'rational', and 'wise' conservative (that eliminates about 97% of conservatives), in the audience, that could justify spending $3 Trillion dollars in six years, on a country outside of the USA, across an OCEAN, and literally almost on the other side of the planet? That is what has been spent, from 2003-2009 on Iraq. And what did we Americans get out of it, that is POSITIVE to us? Against, spending just under $1 trillion on AMERICA and AMERICANS, INSIDE, the USA. Giving upwards of 96% of Americans health care coverage, reduce the debt that we are in, lower the rate of medical bankruptcies we are currently experiencing, AND, make Americans healthy for ten years?

There isn't a sane, rational, or wise, conservative, that could raise a single justifiable answer as 'why not'. Those people, are on the side of getting health care for their fellow Americans. Because sometimes....expenses be damned! We hear from the mindless conservatives on a daily basis. They have not thought things through. We tried their methods, and their means, and it turned out to be our undoing. Right now, millions of our country men (and women...and children)....suffer. Now, we as Americans are taking responsibility for our actions. Righting a wrong that should have been dealt with a LONG time ago. Conservatives, have forgotten what it means to be an American.

QM, as a conservative, wouldn't you agree that too much is being spent on foreign wars?

Even with all the inevitable Dept. of Defense waste? No. The first priority of any nation is to defend itself from invaders. If you took all the money we spend on defense, redirected it for "social services" and scrap the military, China would quickly move in. I think liberals have a tendency to forget that it's our nuke-carrying submarines circling the globe that keep monsters like China in check and everyone honest.

Unfortunately, America has no choice but to be the world's policeman, we've been cast in that role, and a Ron Paul-style return of all our Armed Forces around the world would mean absolute chaos. Think of how many rogue nations there are now, still acting like dicks WITH our military everywhere.

You won't believe this, but "spending (on national security) as a share of the national economy has actually decreased sharply in recent decades and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought only relatively minor increases. In 1951, with overall government spending less than half what it is today, the defense budget was nearly twice its 2009 level. (9% to 4.7%). In other words, military spending as a percentage of all governmental spending is today only one-fourth what it was sixty years ago.

"In 1968, due to Vietnam, military spending rose to 9.8%. That number (of defense spending as a percentage of GDP) came down after the conclusion of the war in Southeast Asia, and sank to a modern low of 3% under Bill Clinton, a level criticized by many military planners as irresponsibly low. Defense spending has increased steadily since then (to an estimated 4.7% this year) under the pressures of the War on Terror. The defense budget nevertheless remains historically low far below its levels under Eisenhower, say, or Kennedy, or Reagan (6%). In explaining the outrageous increase in federal, state and local spending, its obvious that defense and international entanglements had nothing to do with it."

Wood Chipper and Friends are complaining that "no one is doing anything" to help "the poor."

"A book "The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics" written in 2003 cites the U.S. Government budget as reporting that entitlements make up approximately 65 percent of our budget, distributed as follows:
Social Security: 23%
Medicare: 12%
Medicaid: 7%
Other Means-tested entitlements: 6%
Mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%
Net interest on debt: 11%

In 2005, Senator Judd Gregg, then Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee stated that "Mandatory entitlement spending now represents a whopping 55 percent of all federal spending. If left on its current path, that could jump to more than 60 percent in 10 years. That will force us to cut out other necessary expenditures or raise taxes and weaken our economy." Source: The Hill newspaper, Washington DC."

Believe what you like, but there are the facts. Defense spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements aka health, education, welfare. And while military tech has much improved, you don't see a doubling of quality in our govt. schools and you SURE as hell aren't going to see quantum leaps of innovation and efficiency in health care by letting the government run it.

For Kucinich & Friends we could spend 99% of the annual budget on entitlements and they would, and STILL never be happy. It's straight up fking bullsht that so many people have to have their hard-earned sht stolen by a thugverment and handed to people that don't give a sht, don't try and don't care. Yes, some of them need help, but what about the guy that can do the same as you, only he chooses to fk off? Why should you have to pay for his indolence? Do you really think it's just "the rich' getting soaked? Take a look at your paystub. The feds take a nice chuck out of your ass every week or two weeks, even if you're flipping burgers.

mootie writes At least some of that goes towards HELPING people instead of KILLING them.

We spent massive treasure and blood removing a tyrant from Iraq and giving 30 million Iraqis a chance to govern themselves. Doesn't that HELP them?

Liberalism starts with a negative premise, then gets even angrier that the impossible can't be solved with huge sums of money. It's like jumping down a hole and hanging from the bar of weights you're trying to lift while dangling.

"Because providing for a common defense is written into the Constitution, while taking care of citizens' every need (and want) is not."

While you're certainly entitled to your opinions, you aren't free to revise the Constitution to leave out the portions that are inconvenient to your argument. Let's go to the text:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
...
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

So yes, "provide for the common defense" is written in the Constitution - but so is "promote the general welfare." Stepping away from your straw man argument about catering to "citizens' every need (and want)" and getting back to health care - I think it's clear that improving the health of the US falls well within the bounds established.

"...the huge, tyrannical government the South feared during Civil War days is now a dangerous reality."

You mean that huge, tyrannical government the South feared would regulate their slave trade? You don't see the irony in siding with the pro-slavery South in order to convince people to "defend liberty?"

"...there's a conservative pissed at 9 billion lost PER YEAR on Medicare fraud. "

Red herring issue - but hey, if you really want to go there let's do the comparison. On one hand, according to you, conservatives are pissed about 9 billion lost PER YEAR on Medicare fraud. On the other hand, you have liberals pisses about $605 billion and 4,276 troop deaths due to the fraudulent war in Iraq. Who do you think has the moral high ground?

Question: Why does congress spend without end on war in certain countries and bailouts (of businesses) and have a fit when there's discussion of spending on healthcare?

Answer: The two things that congress will spend on without end is taking public money to either directly go into corporate hands (bailouts) or to benefit corporate interests (war - demand of products go up and more importantly controlling markets like oil). Health care is spending public money on the public good - it takes away from corporate interests and far far more dangerous it sets a precedent that the government should do things for the American citizen. It fucking sucks but everything makes sense once you accept it.

The more general question is how can any variation of a democracy tolerate corporate interests having any sway in the affairs of their government?

QM - You might have compelling arguments to make but I doubt I'm alone in finding it hard to take you seriously when you fling out stuff like "taxocrat" and "communist" so casually. Take it back a notch and maybe we can learn something from each other.

...Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So that doesn't imply, I don't know... not getting sick and dying?

You can argue your conservative position day and night but in the end what you want to do is let people die. There's a word for that, and apparently it's not in your vocabulary (must have kicked it out to make room for clever slanders against taxocrats, right?)

unconscionable

I'll leave it to you to look it up seeing as how you're so capable and responsible.

^ that's a great video. I of course don't approve of 9/11, but I think the terrorists should've thrown all the planes at the Pentagon, wouldn't be as dramatic, but they deserve most of the blame.

So Kucinich's argument is "if government is wasting so much money on wars and bailouts, why can't it waste just a few more on healthcare?". Two wrongs don't make a right.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Because providing for a common defense is written into the Constitution, while taking care of citizens' every need (and want) is not.

Quill42 already addressed this issue but I wanted to put an exclamation point on it:

welfare: Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being

There's a lot of shit the government is involved in that I don't think it has any business being involved in, and I don't know how I feel about all of the ideas floating around as part of healthcare reform, but the idea that the government shouldn't have any interest in the health of its citizens is pretty stupid.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

lol.... "invaders". If that were true I'd agree with you. Unfortunately that has nothing to do with why we've been in the middle east for the past 8 years.

>> ^quantumushroom:
The first priority of any nation is to defend itself from invaders.


You mean The Invaders ?

dude you been watching too much V.

"For every liberal pissed about spending on missiles and bombs, there's a conservative pissed at 9 billion lost PER YEAR on Medicare fraud."

Hmm, did we forget about those $400 toilet seats, etc. that the government wastes on military spending? I just talked to a guy that had been working over in Iraq and he said there are so many contractors/businesses over there ripping off the government it isn't funny. Even the guy he worked for was under investigation by the FBI for fraud.

>> ^gtjwkq:
So Kucinich's argument is "if government is wasting so much money on wars and bailouts, why can't it waste just a few more on healthcare?". Two wrongs don't make a right.


Except that last I checked, Kucinich also wants us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, as well wanting to make large cuts in the defense industry. It's not a question of two wrongs making a right, it's simply a question of moving money we're already spending. In fact, because we spend so much on "defense", we could cover the cost and then some if we were willing to cut war spending.

Never mind that medicare for everyone would save hundreds of billions for taxpayers. Even people who currently don't pay for healthcare would benefit. Universal healthcare gives you more options, better quality and lower cost so why not?

-Karl

Never mind that Gandhi showed the futility of armed conflict. One would think that after such an example anyone with at least a minimum of intelligence would realize the complete uselessness of armed forces.
Every conflict we have been in since then could have been resolved through non-violent resistance with fewer lives lost than in an armed conflict so why have armed forces at all?
-Karl

Kucinich voted 'NO' on the health bill that just passed.


His statement why is here: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/11927


Essentially its 'health insurers make money by denying care, and we can't fault them for wanted money; we are in charge of our system, so why would we want private health insurers?'

Yet, as it was pointed out, the total cost of Mass Health, was $88 million. The editor said this was 5/8ths of 1% of the total bill.

This needs to be addressed because of the spectacular degree of truth and common sense it curbstomps. It staggers the mind that there are people out there with the gall to parrot it. This doesn't even rise to the level of basic common sense.

What about this article that says the program 'cannot be sustained...' and that it is '33% more expensive than the national average' AND 'is spending $595 million MORE THIS YEAR on its health insurance programs than in 2006'?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/health/policy/16mass.html

Or perhaps THIS article that says that MA government spending on health care in 2008 was 1.686 BILLION? And Mass Health alone was $642 million?

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=2135&query=home

What you're talking about is the fact that some accountant somewhere with a political axe to grind is discussing the cost of Mass Health in very specific terminology. Who knows what gyrations he had to perform with the numbers to arrive at this stupid $88 million figure? But the facts clearly indicate that Mass health 'costs' far more than $88 million. Costs in Massachusetts are spiking far higher than the national average and are being passed on to consumers to prevent to program from failing completely. To discuss Mass health as if it only 'costs' $88 million is not just bending the truth. It is a full on, flat out pile of steaming BS and an insult to anyone's intelligence.

This health care bill, is said to be $980 million.

The bill that passed the house is 1.3 trillion - which increases the federal budget by almost 30%. Try again.

Conservatives, have forgotten what it means to be an American.

No - you sir do not understand what it is to be an American. You don't want to be an American. You want to be a European. America was founded on the principle of FREEDOM and SMALL GOVERNMENT and RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM. National health care attacks the core of all three of those things. It is incredibly, uniquely UNAmerican to want government to take care of your health. Only a person who was a total NON-American would want such a thing. The founding fathers fought a war to avoid such big government garbage. Conservatives alone are the ones who are staying true to American principles here. Liberals are the ones who are turning their backs on American, spitting on the Constitution, and desecrating real American values.

You can care for people, donate to charity, and help out your fellow man WITHOUT having a massive, corrupt, inefficient government boondoggle program. National health care is not necessary. It is certainly not 'American' by any definition. You've got it 100% backwards there, mate.

^ You have some good points here, but when you say conservatives I think you mean libertarians. Conservatives give lip service to freedom and such, but they have been taken over by corporatists who do nothing but take money and spread lies. Libertarians have a real philosophy; though I don't agree that it is the best goal, I can at least respect their honesty. Conservatives are so dysfunctional that it's sad. Of course liberals aren't that much better; their goals are all over the map and they can't agree on anything amongst themselves (and also have some crooks and liars mixed in), but at least their policies have some honest compassion as a foundation. There really isn't one group who has their shit together.

So I don't mean to single you out when I say you're full of shit. Anybody who thinks their group is the lone upholder of traditional American values is full of shit. America is and always has been very diverse in governmental philosophies.

^ Whenever I hear "Traditional American Values" I think someone's trying to sell me a 1950's sitcom as some sort of lost ideal that we need to go back to. I think people need to understand that "Traditional American Values" could just as easily mean misogyny, slavery, and the slaughter of indigenous peoples for material gain as it is to mean something positive like empathy, generosity, and equality.

It's funny, but you pretty much described the way I think of our political sphere right now. One party has totally sold itself out to corporate socialists (the Republicans), but uses libertarian rhetoric to trick people into thinking they're something they're not, and the other party is a herd of well-meaning cats, with more than a few snakes thrown in the mix.

That's why I'm constantly on a pro-cat agenda, though I would also like to get them to learn to march in lockstep when it really matters, without losing that cacophonous diversity that's just as important to it's identity as anything else.

Conservatives give lip service to freedom and such, but they have been taken over by corporatists who do nothing but take money and spread lies.

I think you're confusing "Conservative" with "Republian Party" here. The Republican party stopped being 'conservative' a long time ago. If you're talking about Republicans, then I agree with you. However, if you are talking about 'conservatives' then I think you're totally off base. Conservatives stand for principles of small government, personal responsibility, and individual freedom. Republicans do not.

liberals...at least their policies have some honest compassion as a foundation

Liberalism as a POLITICAL philosophy focuses only on one thing - the increase in the size and scope of centralized government at the expense of personal freedom. The end results are as compassionate as a sack of hammers. No one who uses Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or the myriad other so-called liberal social programs and comes away feeling like they dealt with a 'compassionate' entity. Liberalism is not compassionate. It is an excuse for people to NOT be compassionate.

I long ago pegged liberalism. People are attracted to liberalsm because they feel like 'someone should do SOMETHING' about the world's problems. But the problems don't ever go away, and they don't feel like people are 'doing enough'. Hence, they want to create massive federal programs to address these issues. Then the liberal guy can ignore the problems because "government is taking care if it for them. When you get right down to it, liberalism is the attempt to offload compassion to 'government' via legislation, taxation, & social engineering - thereby absolving individuals from personal action. It doesn't matter how horrible a job government does, or how many freedoms it annihilates, as long as a liberal guy can walk down the street and ignore the sick & needy - resting assured that 'government' will take care of the problem instead of him having to help.

Human misery and injustice exist. Nothing can be done to eliminate them. The best solution is to have a people that believe in a philosophy of compassion that will minimize the negatives. That is best accomplished by teaching, service, and kindness at the individual level. In short - it is best accomplished by teaching people to be 'good' (inherently a religious function). But liberals reject 'religion' out of hand. Therefore they use 'Government' as a substitute and attempt to force everyone to be good by law. All efforts by government along these lines have been spectacular failures, because legislating morality without acknowledging a moral imperitive is idiotic.

Liberalism 'compassionate'? Ha! It is the antithesis of compassion. But liberalism doesn't mind killing compassion, skinning it, and wrapping the tattered ghost of compassion around itself to advance its political aims.

Wow, you have a very warped mind.

First of all, being "good" has nothing to do with religion. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism explains being good, and why atheists don't all go around killing and raping. Religion wraps around that fundamental human instinct and falsely claims ownership of it.

Second, if our problems were being solved by compassionate people at an individual level, we wouldn't have problems big enough to be addressed by collective (government) action. People place these responsibilities in the hands of government because most feel completely unable to help individually, so we choose to give a portion of our income so that we may, as a group, fund programs that have a chance of helping. And if they are flawed, then it is our responsibility to try to fix them.

I would love for you to define "personal freedom". I define it as being able to do what I want when I want. I accept limitations that prevent me from adversely affecting others, because I don't want them adversely affecting me. I suspect you define personal freedom as "keeping my income", which is a valid desire, but selfish and in my opinion shortsighted.

As a society, we have decided we want support when we are layed off, education for all children independent of ability to pay, support when we are old and our savings run out, police, fire fighters, etc. If at any point the majority of us decide we don't want these anymore, or that the systems are broken and need to be redesigned, that should happen. Like the struggle now for health care, which is overwhelmingly supported by the majority. Only the massive funding of corporations prevents it from being a smooth implementation.

So let me summarize, the conservatives who are "rugged individualists" say if you are unlucky and shit happens to you, well then you are fucked.

Whereas the liberals say that any one of us at any time could face difficulties, so we should collectively try to support those that are worst off.

Now it may be the case that every program we try to implement is a "spectacular failure", but at least we are trying. That's what I consider compassion. And I consider it a "personal freedom" that I don't have to fight tooth and nail to stay in a sucky job because I'm afraid of starving. I would also consider it a personal freedom if one day I might get sick and simply get treatment instead of dying or going bankrupt.

In conclusion, if you feel that government support programs are not working, then you should be working to fix them or supporting people with plans on how to fix them, rather than simply giving up and trying to remove them. Killing a program like social security may save you ten bucks a month, but it wouldn't help anybody. And if you then wanted to support a local program that made sure senior citizens didn't starve to death, you'd have to pay a lot more than ten bucks a month because there would be a lot of people who wouldn't help. Probably your "rugged individualists" who want to keep their paychecks.

First of all, being "good" has nothing to do with religion. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism explains being good, and why atheists don't all go around killing and raping.

Religion has an organized system with which it attempts to train and instruct people in how to 'be good'. Atheism does not. Is religion perfect at it? Of course not. But having a group that teaches a moral system is more likely to result in a moral people. The simple concept of reciprocal altruism without an underlying moral system to support it is rhetorical.

Second, if our problems were being solved by compassionate people at an individual level, we wouldn't have problems big enough to be addressed by collective (government) action.

This is an 'either or' point of view I reject. Using your logic, is it not equally fair to say that "If the problems were being solved by putting them in the hands of government, the USSR wouldn't have had problems that needed addressing?" Clearly the problems are NOT 'solvable' under ANY system. Therefore your statement is a logical fallacy. We do not need government programs merely because private ones have difficulties.

People place these responsibilities in the hands of PRIVATE CHARITY because most feel completely unable to help individually, so we choose to give a portion of our income so that we may, as a group, fund PRIVATE CHARITIES that have a chance of helping. And if they are flawed, then it is our responsibility to try to fix them.

See whut I did ther?

I would love for you to define "personal freedom".

Sure - the ability to think and act as I wish. That includes all levels of the human condition including social, personal, intellectual, emotional, physical, and FINANCIAL freedom.

Like the struggle now for health care, which is overwhelmingly supported by the majority.

That 'overwhelming support of the majority' explains why 52% oppose it I guess...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

So let me summarize, the conservatives who are "rugged individualists" say if you are unlucky and $#it happens to you, well then you are ****ed.

And you say my perspective is warped. Such didism as you spew here is the epitome of warped, even brainwashed, perspective. Conservatism says "If you can take care of yourself - you should." People who can afford insurance (even if it isn't 'convenient') should pay their way. Conservatives are more than willing to volunteer time, money, and help to those who need it - but that aid is not in the form of an involuntary, confiscatory tax going to a wasteful government program. It is in the form of personal, individual, freely-given time, talent, and resources.

Whereas the liberals say that any one of us at any time could face difficulties, so we should collectively try to support those that are worst off.

That isn't a liberal approach. That's a CONSERVATIVE approach. Your problem is that the FORM of your 'collective support' is politically liberal - I.E. an involuntary, forcible tax going to an iefficient, ineffective program. And you don't see how wrong that is. 'Collective aid' does not have to be 'forced taxes' or 'government programs'.

Now it may be the case that every program we try to implement is a "spectacular failure", but at least we are trying.

Private, volunteer efforts are also 'just trying' - and they don't strip away your freedoms.

In conclusion, if you feel that PRIVATE programs are not working, then you should be working to fix them or supporting people with plans on how to fix them, rather than simply giving up and trying to remove them.

C whut I did ther again?

Killing a program like social security may save you ten bucks a month, but it wouldn't help anybody.

It would save me over $100 a month. That is $1,200 a year I could be investing in my own retirement plan. Then when I retired I could be a multi-millionaire and wouldn't need Social Security. Now imagine millions of retired people who DON'T NEED SOCIAL SECURITY because they are all multi-millionaires. These people would have money for thier own medical care, to purchase goods & services, travel, or whatever else they want. They could also contribute to charity, and help out the needy because they were in a position to lend a helping hand instead of need government subsistence checks just to pay for utilities. I'd call that helping EVERYBODY. Would there be a few hard luck cases? Sure. Again - they could be helped without the spectacular failure that is the Social Security program.

Yeah, you're right. I just checked my paycheck and they're taking about a hundred bucks from me too. Fuck grandma, let her starve. She should have invested better. There are plenty of soup kitchens. Let's go back to the days before medicare and the new deal and income taxes, when the sick and old would just die and leave the rest of us alone. I tithe to my church, maybe they'll take care of some of those leeches.

^ Oh I see, if the wonderful government doesn't come up with a solution for something, no one ever will, right?