Almost all that you list here happened while the democrats have run congress.  Maybe they should spend less time on meaningless resolutions?

  They have another whole year to run congress before the next election.  Want to bet how much they get done?

These are all giveaway programs. People need to work and get their own healthcare, pay their way thru school, work together to make their towns/cities/communities better, and be better at paying as you go!!  It's the government, stupid, that put us in this position!  If you earn something, you take better care of it than if everything is given to you!!

One thing you forget about the weak dollar, our trade deficit has been cut in half, because our products are suddenly affordable overseas.

http://newsbusters.o...

Not a bad thing for folks whose companies do business globally.

top quality education, Awesome! Hey guys! A teacher who favors voucher programs, and actually spending LESS on education!!!  AND, one who no doubt favors relying less on education majors and more on actual adademic subject majors, part-time teachers, and removing of federal money from the system!  (I could go on and on, but...)

As for your whine to have the government steal from me to pay for your doctor...I suggest my fellow NBers duck, and I apologize in advance for my predictability and lengthiness.  But as long as people keep whining for a Government Nanny at our expense...I have to keep this holstered.

Universal health care violates a very simple principle: "There is no such thing as a free lunch."  It will merely delude people into thinking there is one.  To illustrate: why are we all striving to drive less right about now?  Because the price of gasoline is rather high right now.  If the government subsidized the price so that it always cost, say, 25 cents a gallon, would you be so keen on restricting your driving?  No, because there would be no incentive to.  But in the meantime, the cost to the government of the subsidy would continually shoot through the roof, causing them to spend more and more money to keep the price at 25 cents.

The same thing will happen when you remove the price mechanism from health care, which universal health care plans seek to do.  Right now people don't visit the doctor nearly as often for things they can easily treat at home, because who wants to spend the money on something they can easily take care of themselves?  Once the price mechanism is removed, because health care is "free" at that point, people will hit the emergency room for paper cuts.  This is human nature, and indeed happened (and is happening) in nations with "universal health coverage". 

 The idea of universal health care is indeed a good idea - on paper only.  In practice it is a raging disaster that governments are loathe to get rid of because the electorate will scream at the proposal to re-introduce economic realities (i.e., prices) to the system.  (And if you think the debt is bad now, just wait until the government nationalizes health care.  France and Germany cannot meet the strictures of the Growth and Stability Pact they signed to join the euro; in fact, I don't think they've done it a single time!  This due to the deficits they run to fund their nanny states, to include health care.) 

Take a look at this passage from The Struggle For Europe (pages 55-56) on the mess Britain created for itself by giving away the store.  The book is authored by William I. Hitchcock:“Alongside his heavy responsibilities for housing, (Ernest) Bevan also crafted the centerpiece of the Labour government’s social policy: the National Health Service.  The Churchill coalition, in 1944, proposed a National Health Service based on the twin principles that every citizen in the country had a right to the best medical facilities available and that these services should be free.  Bevan started by proposing the nationalization of all hospitals, which gave the government total control over the system and brought them into one unified structure.  The real problem was with the doctors and their lobbying arm, the British Medical Association.  They feared a loss of autonomy, a weakened relationship with patients, and of course, the inability to charge fees to paying customers who wished to have special treatment.  Bevan wisely decided to give the BMA what it demanded, but not before a great deal of invective from the doctors, who accused Bevan of seeking dictatorial control over the profession. 

“Bevan took immense pride in the fact that ‘despite our financial and economic anxieties, we are still able to do the most civilized thing in the world – put the welfare of the sick in front of every other consideration’.  These were noble words, but very quickly it became clear the government underestimated the cost of the NHS.  Bevan assumed that free health care would mean a healthier public, and therefore fewer trips to the doctor.  He did not consider the natural human impulse to take full advantage of a free service. (Italics courtesy of Unsane) Consider the testimony of Mrs. Claire Bond of Leeds, recorded by the historian Paul Addison: “When the National Health Service came along, it was fantastic.  My mother and dad had been having problems with their teeth for ages, and I think they were the first at the dentist, as soon as it was opened, they were there for an appointment.  And instead of having just a few teeth out, they had the complete set out.  And free dentures.”  They were not alone.  In the first year of operation, eight and a half million people sought free dental treatment, and over 5 million pairs of free spectacles were dispensed.  Doctors wrote 187 million prescriptions in the first year alone.  Overnight, the NHS overran its budget by more than 50 million pounds.  By 1951 it cost more than 400 million pounds a year to run.  The chancellor of the Exchequer, then Hugh Gaitskill, insisted that a small charge be imposed on prescriptions for teeth and glasses; Bevan refused, saying it would undermine the principle of free service that lay at the heart of his Health Service.  On 23 April 1951, Bevan resigned in protest.”   

Another thing to bear in mind is that one of the biggest motivating factors to a Canadian is to be different from the Americans, for their biggest fear is being like their neighbors to the south.  Canada owes its existence to the Declaration of Independence as much as we do, for they represent the reaction against it.I would be willing to bet that one of the reasons they love their health care system so much is that Americans do not have such a program.  (And if we adopt such a system, they will say with much snootiness that they inspired the Americans into getting such a system.)  But in reality, their socialistic approaches to many problems is only hurting them.  While the Canadian economy has expanded, it has not expanded NEARLY as fast as the U.S. economy.  And the Canadian economy has expanded due to their blessings of natural resources, not due to what even the governments prefer the driving engine to be - namely, manufacturing and industrial activity.  The gap between the U.S. and Canada continues to grow and expand, in the U.S.'s favor.  The Economist reports in their survey of Canada published in December 2005 that Americans made C$1800 more per person than Canadians back in 1981; but in 2003, this gap widened to C$7200.  The British publication further reports that Canadians are happy to be poorer if it means keeping their social model, for they see it is better than the heartless version of capitalism to the south.  I contend again that this points to the issue of national identity that Canadians continually struggle with.

Before you whine to me about the surge of the loonie, I would remind you to look up what "Dutch disease" is, and how that can threaten the Canadian economy.

Here's an admittedly unscientific measure of progression in health care: a listing of the nationalities of those who won the Nobel Prizes in Medicine from 1977 to 2004 in reverse order.

2004: U.S.

2003: U.S. /U.K.

2002: U.S. /U.K.

2001: U.K.

2000: Sweden/U.S.

1999: U.S.

1998: U.S.

1997: U.S.

1996: Australia/Switzerland (no socialized health care in Switzerland)

1995: U.S./Germany

1994: U.S.

1993: U.S./U.K.

1992: U.S.

1991: Germany

1990: U.S.

1989: U.S.\

1988: U.S./U.K.

1987: Japan

1986: Italy/U.S.

1985: U.S.

1984: U.K./Argentina/Denmark

1983: U.S.

1982: Sweden/U.K.1981:

U.S.

1980: France/U.S.

1979: U.S./U.K.

1978: U.S/ Switzerland

1977: U.S.

Between 1977 and 2004, U.S. doctors won 22 Nobel Prizes in Medicine - more than the other countries shown combined.  To save server space I did not list ALL the recipients, but I noticed that the Nobel prize winners in the early going were from many assorted European countries.  This began to change in the 1960s, when the listing of winners trended sharply American.  I wonder what motivated all of these doctors.  Pure altruism?  The commitment to doing work for free?  Did any of these doctors give away their prize money or refuse it?And why are all of these Nobel prize winners hailing from the United States?  Could it be that the system of health care here favors innovation and different approaches, due to the market-oriented system that exists here?  (And rewards such innovation?)  Why do I not see any Canadians listed here?  Why did the last French recipient get his or her prize in 1980? 

Yet more evidence that gives me pause to wonder why there are so many in the United States dedicated to killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

Yes, and I still didn't get in the fact that the photo was from 2003! And look at her suit, the tee-shirt under the blouse, the hair...it's the same as the NYT photo from today. they used a 4-year-old picture in a current story, and didn't label it a file photo or anything.

Isn't that unethical?

Nevermind...you already addressed that. LOL