Evenin,' LikeEm. Glad you came back to this. We're up late again. Only this time I made sure I got all my homework done and everything else, too. And I'm going to go to bed earlier, too, although I made the mistake of taking a nap when I got home from school earlier, so we'll see how sleep goes.

I figured you or someone'd find the suggestion of socialized healthcare as a Democratic-driven turnoff. And it's not necessarily just a Democratic idea, interestingly enough. The thing about making healthcare affordable is that, with insurance companies, immense hospital companies, and big pharma the leading drivers of those costs, achieving lower costs is about as likely as getting it to snow in Dallas in August. Especially not under the auspices of a Republican administration and legislature. For them to interfere in the workings of big bidness and limit costs? Certainly you know better than that. And you must know that big bidnesses don't ever voluntarily lower costs themselves. It just doesn't happen.

I'm hoping you, like I was, were probably speaking of an ideal solution, right? In theory, I agree with you. Ideally, limiting costs is the best approach. It'd be better for health care quality, better for the freedom of research and medical advances, better for consumer freedom. Better for everyone but insurance companies, big hospital chains, and big pharma. Which is precisely why that'll never happen. They won't let it. The AMA wouldn't, either, I imagine, but they're far less powerful in lobbying and money power than insurance, hospitals, and pharma.

Don't worry. Chances are they won't let socialized medicine happen, either. But you never know. In the 60s, hospitals, doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and everyone else predicted the complete devastation of the American medical system when Medicare and Medicaid were signed into law. And every one of those entities has "made out like Halliburton" thanks to those services. Millions of people have benefited tremendously, too, even as grossly imperfect as those government-sponsored health care services are. And all reasonable people on both sides of the aisle agree that they're vitally necessary services.

The ironic thing is that it's the spiraling health care costs--and the down-spiraling number of people with insurance--that'll ultimately drive us to socialized medicine. So if you can figure out a way to get Republicans to limit costs, go for it.

I realize that, as the wife, daughter-in-law, granddaughter, great-granddaughter, and great-great-granddaughter of physicians (my great-great-granddad was also the founder of a large Southern hospital system)--and as a first-year medical student myself--I'm talking what's considered absolute blasphemy in medical circles when I favor limiting costs or socialized medicine. But my heritage also gives me a fairly thorough understanding of the factors at stake in modern medicine. So I shall continue to blaspheme.

Forgive me, but what could you possibly have been referring to with the Janet Reno clothes comment? I have absolutely no idea, but I have to tell you the comment almost frightened me with its absurdity if that's something you really fear. I have to hope you were being sarcastic, but the reference itself is a mystery to me.
birdgirl73 Reviewed by birdgirl73 on . Why are you a ? The problem with America is that politicians have forgotten how to be statesman. They are more concerned with standing up for their party rather than standing up for their country. Answer me this, ??why are you a Republican/ why are you a Democrat,? I would like to know? As for me I am a registered Independent. I firmly believe that I owe political loyalty to no one?they work for me. Quite frankly I??m disgusted with both parties. I lean fairly conservative so I tend to vote Rating: 5