Got this from a Canadian friend...

And thought it worthwhile in the light of current events:

As a Canadian I marvel at all of these terms that are so common to Americans, but are virtually unknown to us.

Here's a partial list off the top of my head:

1. "Out of network"
There are no "networks" in Canada. Doctors and hospitals are not affiliated with private insurance companies. Doctors are private business entities and hospitals are usually run by non-profit boards or regional health associations.

2. "COBRA"
Health coverage is NOT tied to your place of employment in any way. So any COBRA-like scheme is unnecessary.

3. "Co-Pay"
The government pays 100% of basic care, 100% of the time. Drugs are not covered, but are subsidized by government to a point. And because of mass buys, discounts are obtained from the drug companies. That's why our prices are so much lower. Most employers offer a drug plan that pays for 100% of drug cost coverage.

4. "monthly premium\deductible"
Wazzat? We don't consider our health to be the same as our possessions.

5. "waiting for approval"
Doctors are the sole decision makers for health care. NOBODY influences or delays their decisions, warns them of costs or prevents them from giving treatment for any reason.

6. "Government interference"
The provincial government in each province PAYS for whatever services doctors provide. No questions asked. Unless the procedure is experimental, not medically necessary or unwarranted, doctors cannot deny basic care - by law.

7. "Health insurance lobby"
There are NO insurance companies for basic care, only companies for providing insurance for travelers. No money to be made here.

8. "bureaucracy"
When we visit a hospital or doctor's office, we walk in, get treated, walk out. No "applications", "registrations" or any other kind of paperwork is required. We NEVER have to talk to a single "government official" or wait for a "judgment".

9. "PRE-EXISTING CONDITION"
This is such a foreign concept to us. A Canadian's usual reaction to the explanation of this term is astonishment.


I'm glad to see that a sane health care system is within reach in America. Fight for it. It's WORTH it.

And now, the backlash:

Because Shepard Smith of Fox News had the temerity to call it like he saw it, the Right is now calling for his head. The whole article can be found atMediaMatters.com.

On June 10, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith said the Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting validated a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report alerting law enforcement to an increased threat from "rightwing extremists," including "white supremacists." Smith said: "[T]his is a former military guy and he's gone extremist. They were warning us for a reason -- not about something political or social or anything else. ... It was a warning to us all. And it appears now that they were right." Smith also said that he's receiving "more and more frightening" emails from viewers since President Obama's election, including conspiracy theories about Obama's birth certificate. In response to Smith's remarks about the Holocaust museum shooting, several conservative media figures have attacked Smith or called for his firing from Fox News.

Sorry folks, but Jew-hating Holocaust deniers ARE extreme rightists. And DHS is correct. Anybody remember Timothy McVeigh? His ilk is on the rise again, and they're being egged on by the likes of Beck, Hannity, Coulter and Limbaugh - though, like all good neocons, they're accountability-averse. They'll continue to claim thay have no responsibility for this while simultaneously blaming the "liberal" media for the decline of American culture.
I wonder if they ever actually listen to what comes out of their mouths?

Some thoughts on "enhanced interrogation"

Used to be, waterboarding was a war crime. We prosecuted, and even executed, individuals for doing it, as explained in this editorial by a former JAG (Judge Advocate General)in the Nevada National Guard.
Even Reagan's DOJ prosecuted for this in
1983.
So could someone please explain to me WHY, if it was a war crime for the Japanese to do this to our soldiers, and it was worth a 10-year prison sentence for a Texas Sheriff, it is NOT worth investigating and/or prosecuting?
This is something Obama's AG has simply GOT to push on - if the people who allowed this nation to torture in our name are not held accountable, what message does that send to (a) the civilized world, and (b) our kids? If we're not going to respect the rule of law, what earthly right do we have to complain if they don't?

Yet another reason I will be deleriously happy at 12:01PM EST on January 20th...

Read the full thing here.

"George Bush, still President, is engaging in a legacy tour of media outlets. This comes
despite his earlier having said he did not know how history would judge the Iraq
war "because we'll all be dead."
Actually, many people are already dead because of Bush, and that is
the point to keep in mind when he talks about his legacy.
Among the themes Bush is striking are that through action at
home and fighting "them" over there, not over here, his administration
stopped terrorist attacks and prevented another 9/11. There is a surface
plausibility to those claims, as there has often been with the messaging
served up by the Karl Rove spin machine.
But let's look beneath the surface of the assertions.
Bush stopped terrorist attacks? Yes, some of the many alleged plots cited by the White House probably would have matured into attacks had not the U.S.
intelligence community acted. Many were more aspirational than operational,
and others were the pure inventions of FBI informants. (In the Miami
Liberty City case, an FBI informant apparently bribed people who previously
had no interest in Al Qaeda.
When they swore the oath to Osama Bin Laden, they were then arrested for doing so.)
But even if taken on its face as true, should having stopped terrorist attacks earn this President a Harry Truman-like reassessment down the road? I can attest from firsthand knowledge that the Clinton
administration stopped numerous terrorist operations that would have resulted in American deaths. Yet I don't hear Bill Clinton running around boasting about that. Clinton has other things to lay claim to - a balanced budget, huge job growth and eight years without a major war. If you
don't think the Clinton administration stopped a major terrorist attack
in New York City, you might want to talk with the blind sheik, who was involved in
a plot to blow up the United Nations, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the George
Washington Bridge and a federal building housing the FBI. But that would
be tough to do because Omar Abdel-Rahman is in solitary in a federal prison in Colorado.
There wasn't a second 9/11? That's obviously true, but it misses the
point. First, we must remember that Al Qaeda terrorists are patient, deliberate planners who often wait years between strikes. Second, there was
the first 9/11 - and it happened on Bush's watch. Without rehashing the
entire 9/11 Commission Report, the historical
record is pretty clear by now that Bush did virtually nothing about the
repeated warnings to him that those cataclysmic attacks were coming.
Unfortunately, I can personally attest to that as well. "

Lord - Even if Obama's only COMPETENT, he's gonna look like FDR next to this jackass.

Hmmm...seems Sarah Palin is NOT all that popular in Alaska...

http://mudflats.wordpress.com/2008/09/14/alaska-women-reject-palin-rally-is-huge/