Hello Bob,   
      
    LL>> As it should.  However, the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)   
    LL>> is NOT universal health care.  It is an improvement from   
    LL>> what we had before, but even when fully implemented far   
    LL>> from what Americans need and truly deserve.   
      
    BK>> That is true. It's a first step, not a panacea.   
      
    LL>> The Affordable Care Act brings us in line as to what   
    LL>> Switzerland and the Netherlands have.  Not a perfect   
    LL>> system, with a lot of fixing left to be done, but better   
    LL>> than what we have now.   
      
   BK>It's not even that good, but you do have the right idea. In   
   BK>fact, Switzerland is the country I always compare out system to,   
   BK>because it's the most expensive of the other industrial   
   BK>countries. Yet still 1/3rd cheaper than our system. That's a   
   BK>$trillion a year we would save.   
      
   I mentioned Switzerland and the Netherlands because both of their   
   health care systems forbid cherry picking.  IOW, coverage (access)   
   for people with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied.  With   
   our healthcare-for-profit system, such discrimination has always   
   existed, a sickening system (especially for pregnant women) that   
   finally comes to an end this coming January.   
      
   Americans pay far more than they should have to pay for access   
   to quality health care.  Folks in other countries have to pay only   
   about 40% what Americans pay for the same amount of coverage.  Why   
   is that?  We say we have the best quality health care in the world.   
   But if access to that health care is not available, what good does   
   it do?  If something is not affordable, it is not accessible.  Duh.   
      
    LL>> What exactly do Americans need and truly deserve?  Improved   
    LL>> Medicare for All via single-payer health care.   
      
    BK>> It could be done within the same general system we have now.   
    BK>> Most other industrialized countries do it, but they regulate it   
    BK>> much more.   
      
    LL>> More regulation is needed in this country if access to   
    LL>> quality health care is to become a reality for all, or even   
    LL>> most.   
      
   BK>Just for the health care system to survive. When it hits 20% of   
   BK>GDP, which it's close to, it will be way too much.   
      
   Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal is ending the charity hospital system   
   in Louisiana, privatizing all charity hospitals in the state.  Within   
   a few months, his dream will be complete.  And then, poor folks can   
   look forward to obtaining all their health care needs at a local clinic   
   or (private) hospital emergency room.  All that with no expanded   
   medicaid coverage.   
      
    BK>> In this country I believe the republicans are going to force   
    BK>> single payer on us, by simply destroying the system we have now.   
    BK>> Impoverish too many people, reduce business to the point where   
    BK>> few get medical benefits, and you have a failed system.   
      
    LL>> For Republicans, it is all about power.  Not healtcare.   
      
   BK>Which they demonstrate in their arguements against Obamacare.   
      
   Defund now, Obstruct later?  Nah.  The Party of No! must remain   
   The Party of No!  Never the Party of Yes We Can!   
      
    LL>> IOW, Republicans are willing to do anything and everything   
    LL>> to get back into power, even if it means gutting access to   
    LL>> quality healthcare. Right now they are threatening to   
    LL>> defund the Affordable Care Act. However, that is an empty   
    LL>> threat as Democrats continue to control the Senate, as well   
    LL>> as the White House.  As such, it is just a stalling tactic,   
    LL>> an attempt to make President Obama look bad.   
      
   BK>And that last sentence sums it all up.   
      
   Just you wait until President Piyush "Bobby" Jindal takes charge.   
   No more will the Republican Party be the stupid Party.  It will be   
   the Party of Stupid ...   
      
    LL>> What is going to happen when people find out they like   
    LL>> Obama's health care plan more than what we had before?  Do   
      
   BK>The right will tell them they are secretly on drugs.   
      
   Taken straight from an episode of "The Walking Dead" ...   
      
    LL>> you think they will want to turn back the clock?  Do you   
    LL>> think Republicans can retain the House and take over the   
    LL>> Senate by promising to repeal "Obamacare"?  Do you think   
    LL>> the Republicans can win the White House in 2016 with that   
    LL>> line?   
      
   BK>Once it's complete they will start reminding us it was their   
   BK>idea in the first place.   
      
   Of course it was their idea - courtesy of The Heritage Foundation.   
   Mitt Romney ran with it, enabling 98% of Massachusetts residents to   
   afford access to quality health care in that state.  President Obama   
   is borrowing a page from Mitt Romney's playbook, tweaking it a bit   
   so that even more folks will enjoy the many benefits of access to   
   quality health care.  Nobody can really blame Republicans for being   
   jealous.   
      
    LL>> Notice I did not say Obamacare, Romneycare or Hillarycare.   
      
    BK>> I noticed.   
      
    LL>> Leecare is the solution.  Paid for by Bob K. and US   
    LL>> taxpayers.   
      
    BK>> Uhh... wait a minute until I get my boots on.   
      
    LL>> The world owes me a living, not the other way around.  :)   
      
   BK>Yeah, but you gotta work to collect on it.   
      
   A tin can works for me.  Or rather, a glass tips jar.  :)   
      
    LL>> Regardless of rank, our men and women in uniform deserve   
    LL>> better than what they get.  What we have today is a   
      
    BK>> Oh is that ever true.   
      
    LL>> That is an understatement.   
      
   BK>When I was in it was not as good as the generation before. Now   
   BK>it's awful.   
      
   Today we can manage to fight small wars, maybe even two at a time.   
   But only limited engagements.  No way we could manage to fight a big   
   war.  Even with a draft.   
      
   We can barely afford to pay veterans who have been disabled since   
   9-11-2001.  What about those vererans who have been disabled prior   
   to then?  No stipends for them.  They (and their families) have to   
   manage the best way they can with what they have.   
      
    LL>> mercenary army that has been brainwashed to think that only   
    LL>> they can save the world. The reality is far different, as   
      
    BK>> They have learned that. 10 years of foreign wars have taught   
    BK>> them that.   
      
    LL>> And yet, all too soon we seem to forget.  Look at Syria.   
    LL>> Look at warhawks in the Congress.  Look at President Obama.   
    LL>> Seems like war has been with us from the time we were born.   
      
   BK>Damn few of them ever wore a uniform, I doubt any saw battle.   
      
   Chickenhawks.  Rush Limbaugh got off because he had (literally) a   
   pimple on his ass.  Dick Cheney received not one, but five deferments.   
   One of those deferments was because he and his wife wanted to make a   
   baby.   
      
   Barack Obama did not serve in the military.  Neither did Bill Clinton.   
   Serving in the military is not a prerequisite to be president.  Serving   
   in the military is not a prerequisite to serve as a member of Congress.   
   Serving in the military is not a prerequisite to serve as Secretary of   
   Defense.  But God forbid is the Secretary of Defense is a veteran of   
   the Vietnam War!   
      
    LL>> it is led by a president who is a wimp (re: Syria).   
      
    BK>> Bush was the whimp. Obama is trying desperately to keep from   
    BK>> getting us into another military trap. Syria? Which side really   
    BK>> did use the poison gas?   
      
    LL>> Wimps go to war.  Tough guys get bullies to back off without   
    LL>> ever having to throw a punch.  That is why Jimmy Carter was   
    LL>> such a great president.  I would have been so easy for him   
    LL>> to have taken us to war in Iran.  Instead, he chose to get   
    LL>> our American diplomats who were held hostage returned to   
    LL>> our soil, all safe and sound, using diplomacy as his weapon   
    LL>> of choice, without losing any combat troops during his   
    LL>> presidency.   
      
   BK>If he had sent the military first thing he would have won   
   BK>re-election, and we would never have had Reagan or the losers   
   BK>who followed him. We would not be in this situation now.   
      
   The Americans who were held hostage in Iran thanked President Carter   
   for having freed them from captivity, even though the Iranians refused   
   to allow their airplane to depart Tehran until Ronald Reagan had been   
   sworn in.  When our people arrived back home, they were greeted on   
   the tarmac by former President Carter, NOT President Reagan.   
      
   Ask yourself this one question - had President Carter taken military   
   action against Iran, how many Americans being held hostage would have   
   survived?  The answer is NONE.   
      
   Remember the failed rescue attempt, in which eight Americans died   
   in a helicopter crash?  It was expected that less than half of the   
   Americans held hostage would have survived.  Half of 52 is 26.   
   Had the rescue attempt been successful, Americans would have cheered   
   and President Carter would have been re-elected.  But dozens of our   
   people would have been dead, along with untold numbers of Iranians.   
      
    LL>> Ronald Reagan would have simply nuked the joint, killing   
    LL>> untold numbers of Iranians, as well as all 52 Americans.   
      
   BK>Nah, he may have been a puppet, ok he was a puppet, but the   
   BK>puppet masters were not that crazy.   
      
   Reagan allowed terrorists to blow up hundreds of our troops in   
   Beirut.  What did he do in response?  Did he order our Air Force   
   to bomb Hezbollah?  Did he send in Marines to storm the beaches?   
   Nah.  Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger refused to abide by   
   Reagan's wishes and forced him to reconsider, leaving Reagan with   
   no other alternative but to withdraw our troops from Lebanon.   
      
   President Barack Obama is making sure he does not make the same   
   mistake that Reagan did, ordering our diplomats out of Lebanon before   
   Hezbollah has the chance to blow them up.  See how that works?  Ask   
   the Congress to authorize him to use military force against Syria,   
   and then withdraw from Lebanon.   
      
    BK>> He suffers from the same failing Bush did, the inability to name   
    BK>> the real enemy, Saudi Arabia.   
      
    LL>> Saudi Arabia is our friend (as long as they keep selling us   
    LL>> oil).   
      
   BK>If we bought it from Iran we would not need near as much Saudi   
   BK>oil, and it would all become cheaper.   
      
   We used to buy it from Iran.  But then President Carter made the   
   mistake of allowing the Shah to seek medical treatment in the US,   
   and France allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to return home.  As you   
   can plainly see, it was all a Jewish plot, being Henry Kissinger's   
   fault.   
      
    BK>> IOW, BFD.   
      
    LL>> That is exactly what President Assad of Syria said about   
    LL>> President Obama's warning not to cross that red line ...   
      
    BK>>> He may learn the hard way.   
      
    LL>> Oh, come now!  Russians and Iranians are his friends!   
    LL>> And with friends like that, who needs enemies?   
      
   BK>Think about what you just said.   
      
   What'd I say?  Tell me what'd I say?  C'mon, baby,   
   tell me what'd I say?  Ooh, yeah.  All right. ...   
      
    LL>> The fact of the matter is that Bashar al-Assad has   
    LL>> survived in Syria far longer than you or me ever could.   
      
   BK>We are not brutal enough.   
      
   We really have lost our touch.  PETA is bad enough.   
   The ACLU almost just as bad.  And don't even mention   
   Amnesty International ...   
      
   We waterboarded one individual after 9-11.  One.  Just one.  And the   
   world howled in outrage.  We had soldiers waterboard our own soldiers,   
   showing how safe it is to use waterboarding as a means of torture.   
   None of our soldiers complained.  And yet, the world still objected,   
   calling our president a bunch of nasty names that cannot be repeated   
   on television.  Seeing how pained our president was by all the nasty   
   names he was being called by his European friends, our vice president   
   declared, for all the world to hear, "Waterboarding is not torture."   
      
   Well, you know what happened next.  Everybody started calling   
   our vice president "Darth Vader" - and maybe even for good reason.   
   I mean, the guy really was heartless ...   
      
    LL>> The guy lives in a tough neighborhood and knows how   
    LL>> to survive.  We might not like the guy, but you do have   
    LL>> to give him credit.  He has survived where others have   
    LL>> not.   
      
   BK>Only by killing good people. OTOH, Ghadafi and Saddam did the   
   BK>same.   
      
   Two wrongs does not make a right.  Ten wrongs does not make a right.   
   Not even a million wrongs makes a right.  Even though the world without   
   Gadhafi and Saddam is a better world.  At least for those remaining.   
      
    LL>> Will he run away and seek exile in Saudi Arabia (or some   
    LL>> other Muslim country) if we invade Syria?  Nah.  He'll   
    LL>> stay where he is and let his bodyguards (Iran and Russia)   
    LL>> protect him.   
      
   BK>Iran won't. Russia can't, realistically speaking.   
      
   If the Syria regime thinks it is going down, it may decide to use   
   whatever means are at its disposal to go down fighting, including the   
   use of chemical weapons.  If Iran has at least one working nuclear   
   device, it might decide to use that device as a means of deterrence   
   by attacking Israel, thus protecting both Syria and itself from   
   attack by the US and its allies.  Russia is probably more interested   
   in hosting the Winter Olympics in Sochi rather than fighting a war   
   on its border.   
      
    LL>> Not that I expect us to invade Syria anytime soon ...   
      
   BK>Just bomb and arm the rebels.   
      
   We do that and there will be consequences.  Syria will respond, in   
   some way.  It might attack Israel.  It might invade Lebanon.  It might   
   attempt to sink one or more US ships stationed along its coast.  It   
   might even awaken sleeper cells inside the US.  And that's just for   
   starters.   
      
   --Lee   
      
   --- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb   
    * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)