quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: So here is a dose of REALITY. The Harvard study is bogus AND INTENTIONALLY DECEPTIVE. 44789 deaths per year. REALLY??? Are you sure it isn't 44,788? Or 44790? No. It is 44789. Well what is the big deal with that? By using a PRECISE number per year for a wild projection, it gives the study an implication of PRECISION. There IS no precision in this "study". It could be 10,000. It could be 1,000. It could be 20,000. But no. It is 44,789. This is exactly the kind of psuedo-science garbage that is put out there, and people SUCKER for it because the garbage is from Harvard. What is even MORE shameful is that those same despicable Harvard study authors KNOW that it is the associations that go with uninsurance that are responsible for the increased death rate and not the lack of insurance itself. Goodness. I am quite sure HE knows his numbers are garbage, too. But when you have that much "balls", you certainly aren't going to let a little thing like fact and truth get in the way. Because....you've got "balls".

How in the world can you go around claiming a Harvard study is bogus using conjecture and innuendo as a medical Doctor? As a Doctor, you are a scientist. If you have a problem with the study, the burden lies on YOU to PROVE the study wrong using scientific methods and then PUBLISHING IT in a peer reviewed medical/science journal. As a matter of fact, if you truly believe what you are saying you have a professional duty to do so.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 10-01-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: I like him too, he's got some balls.

So did the Republican who called out Obama in the middle of his (health care speech) speech. (You Lie.)

[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 10-01-2009).]

Yes.. Legal = right... you have the right to buy the product. If you want to talk morals, then that is a whole other conversation.

Tobacco the biggest drain? Wrong.... you can say that tobacco is not healthy, but it is not what is costing the most for health care.

(Don't forget the big tobacco settlement that was supposed to pay states for health care costs associated with the product. Most of that money wasn't spent on health care, so you need to talk to your state reps. about that one. Of course, that was just an tax on an industry.... if the product is so bad, then ban it.)

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Legal = right? I think not, tobacco is one of the biggest drains on healthcare in the US.

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-01-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: How in the world can you go around claiming a Harvard study is bogus using conjecture and innuendo as a medical Doctor? As a Doctor, you are a scientist. If you have a problem with the study, the burden lies on YOU to PROVE the study wrong using scientific methods and then PUBLISHING IT in a peer reviewed medical/science journal. As a matter of fact, if you truly believe what you are saying you have a professional duty to do so.

Not to me. People with money and power get their stuff published, people who know people in power. People with big companies backing them. The truth usually lies in hard working people in the field.
People not really motivated by trying to sell something.

It always takes thought and deduction on the viewers part as well.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-01-2009).]

Papers are placed out for review.... and it is completely appropriate to challenge the findings. Scientists have been doing this for years, decades, centuries.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Not to me. People with money and power get their stuff published, people who know people in power. People with big companies backing them. The truth usually lies in hard working people in the field. People not really motivated by trying to sell something. It always takes thought and deduction on the viewers part as well.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: (Don't forget the big tobacco settlement that was supposed to pay states for health care costs associated with the product. Most of that money wasn't spent on health care, so you need to talk to your state reps. about that one. Of course, that was just an tax on an industry.... if the product is so bad, then ban it.)

Heh, there's the rub.

Government makes SO much money of the sale of tobacco it is absolutely disgusting. They will NEVER ban their cash cow. I will add that it is primarily the lower income people that pay that one for them. They have plans to expand this line of taxation too. The tobacco taxes were just the beginning.

Sorry to say it, and it is truly sad but these days if you think the government has your best interest in mind you are a colossal idiot.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Papers are placed out for review.... and it is completely appropriate to challenge the findings. Scientists have been doing this for years, decades, centuries.

Yeah, not sure those challenges get published though, or make ti to the public. Too much beurocracy.

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Not to me. People with money and power get their stuff published, people who know people in power. People with big companies backing them. The truth usually lies in hard working people in the field. People not really motivated by trying to sell something. It always takes thought and deduction on the viewers part as well.

You don't know what you're talking about. I have been published and I'm neither rich nor powerful. I work with people that are published all the time, and many of them are still medical residents or even just nurses. I don't want to hear a bunch of nebulous BS.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 10-01-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: You don;t know what you're talking about. I have been published and I'm neither rich nor powerful. I work with people that are published all the time, and many of them are still medical residents or even just nurses. I don't want to hear a bunch of nebulous BS.

I guess everyones experience is differnet. Different fields and such.
As for nebulous, see Obama's speeches.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: How in the world can you go around claiming a Harvard study is bogus using conjecture and innuendo as a medical Doctor? As a Doctor, you are a scientist. If you have a problem with the study, the burden lies on YOU to PROVE the study wrong using scientific methods and then PUBLISHING IT in a peer reviewed medical/science journal. As a matter of fact, if you truly believe what you are saying you have a professional duty to do so.

Wow--a liberal bashing use of the 1st amendment.
People aren't entitled to opinions now.
Who knew?

Reminds me of Pelosi's "Dissent is great"--NO, wait--"Now--Dissent is dispicable."

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: LOL, you're ridiculous.

That all you got ?
Your ugly, .
You support a guy who will outright lie ? Shameful. Shame, shame shame ! No, you yell it from the roof tops.
Oh, by the way. Focus on the rest of his diatribe, .

quote Originally posted by maryjane: Wow--a liberal bashing use of the 1st amendment. People aren't entitled to opinions now. Who knew? Reminds me of Pelosi's "Dissent is great"--NO, wait--"Now--Dissent is dispicable."

What? As a medical doctor he is in a position to evaluate and research the study more than you or I could, and with his credentials he can put his argument to the test. By simply claiming it's irrelevant because he doesn't like the findings, that's irresponsible. Provide scientific proof of a flawed study, and I'm on board.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: How in the world can you go around claiming a Harvard study is bogus using conjecture and innuendo as a medical Doctor? As a Doctor, you are a scientist. If you have a problem with the study, the burden lies on YOU to PROVE the study wrong using scientific methods and then PUBLISHING IT in a peer reviewed medical/science journal. As a matter of fact, if you truly believe what you are saying you have a professional duty to do so.

Wrong on several counts. I don't have to do a study to disprove what was never proved. All I have to do is point out the flaws in their scientific method. Although I choke on even calling their method in this study "scientific".

They proved NOTHING. They constructed a flimsy set of parameters, tried to set them up in some semblance of a scientific process hoping the fact that they did that persuaded people that it had SOME level of credibility, and hoped people would get suckered by it.


HERE is my responsibility. Call them on the credibility (lack thereof) of their lack of a scientific method, and on their conclusion.
Which I did. They stated IN THEIR OWN ARTICLE that:

"Uninsurance was associated with younger age,
minority race/ethnicity, unemployment,
smoking, exercise (less than 100 METs per
month), self-rated health, and lower levels of
education and income (P<.001 for all comparisons).
Regular alcohol use and physicianrated
health were also associated with higher
rates of uninsurance".

Then instead of looking at THOSE factors as the reasons for the death rate differences, they STILL went out and presented in the article that uninsurance was THE CAUSE.

ANY scientist will immediately see through their OBVIOUS, INTENTIONAL PRE-EXISTING bias of their so-called "study".


Then, in a FURTHER, STUNNING display of lack of objectivity and scientific honesty, they present THE number as 44,789 deaths per year.

At least a SHRED of intellectual honesty would have stated:

"We ESTIMATE the deaths per year due to uninsurance BY OUR MODELS to be APPROXIMATELY 40,000."


Because this piece of trash doesn't affect INDIVIDUAL PATIENT CARE and only (possibly) policy making, I have no professional duty to challenge the "findings". Honestly, when something is THIS degree of a joke, it doesn't even merit the time to make a response.
This whole thing DOES re-highlight a couple of issues that you deal with:

1. your near worship of certain "name" institutions, and people with degrees from certain places, that blinds you from not objectively examining their assertions and

2. your responding to emotionalism on a subject instead of using intellect (as in admiring Grayson's attempt at an EMOTIONAL reaction to his speech--hence admiring his "balls"-instead of being appalled that it was intellectually void and inaccurate)


BTW, the VERY STATE that Harvard resides in, Massachusetts, ALREADY did a THREE YEAR TRIAL that disproved the Harvard "study" piece of crap. The IMPLEMENTED insurance for ALL. See. Problem solved. Uh. Except they didn't see a drop in mortality from the group that was supposed to be dying from lack of insurance. Because they previously uninsured didn't avail themselves of the opportunities those with insurance availed themselves of. THE PEOPLE proved that it was those OTHER factors associated with uninsurance, and not uninsurance itself, that was the REAL issue.

But, see, real intellectual, reasoned observation and evaluation of FACT requires people to set the emotions aside for a while AND THINK.

Well, we can't have THAT cluttering our House and Senate.

Philip Morris has studies that prove tobacco is good for you.... do you believe they are correct? If not, then you have a duty to challenge them... What? Not going to challenge them? Why not? Because it would be a waste of money? Same applies to this Harvard study.

Numbers (and studies) can be manipulated.

I realize that Grayson was being over the top in his rhetoric. I admire that because he's using the Republicans tactics against them. They have wasted all of this time using over the top rhetoric and charges that boil down to outright lies, and then they call foul when it's thrown back in their faces. Good for him.

As far as the study is concerned, you are the one jumping to conclusions not the Harvad study authors. You say they jump to causation and skip right over coloration. Well, I say it is you who are jumping to conclusions because you are saying these people didn’t seek proper care because of the category they fall under. Are you seriously saying that young people die because they don’t seek medical care? Or that poor people die because of this? Why are the emergency rooms FILLED with minorities, poor people, and the like then? Is that not medical care?

The study is stating that these groups make up a plurality of the uninsured, and that these groups typically do not receive the care that would have saved or prolonged their lives. If you have a problem with that, then write the journal and explain your point of view.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: What? As a medical doctor he is in a position to evaluate and research the study more than you or I could, and with his credentials he can put his argument to the test. By simply claiming it's irrelevant because he doesn't like the findings, that's irresponsible. Provide scientific proof of a flawed study, and I'm on board.

While I certainly accept that "most" of the 1st part of your statement is true, I do not accept the 2nd. Regardless of what his profession is, his level of expertise, or his level of access to research may be, he still has every right to a personal opinion--and a right to post that opinion.

Just as every mechanic doesn't have the same access or time to test theories that a GM engineer does, not every doctor has the time or scientific wherewithal to debunk and post in the Journal. "Studies" are to be taken with a grain of salt always--especially the conclusions that are reached from them. Few conclusions are debunked by other studies--they are debunked in the field. Bear in mind--for instance, that there is a very very long list of drugs, treatments, procedures, cures, and conclusions, that have been recalled--and each and every one of them had a study done on it before being implemented.

It is never a good thing just to accept data and conclusions from that data at face value. Studies, make mistakes all the time, especially, if the study has an end conclusion spelled out before the study is even began.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: People aren't entitled to opinions now.

Well, people are entitled to their opinions, yes.

BUT I DIDN'T USE MY OPINION. I went to the blessed ARTICLE ITSELF and I QUOTED FROM THE ARTICLE where THE AUTHOR HIMSELF wrote about the many other things that are common with being uninsured, which would be plausible and actually more probable reasons for the difference in the death rates than being uninsured.

Goodness. I put it right out there. And it gets totally ignored. Which is about par for the course.
Hey, let's ALSO ignore this. The lead "investigator", Dr. Andrew Wilper, is a prominent member of PNHP. What is that? Some prestigious medical organization, no doubt.

Uh, it is Physicians for a National Health Program. Oh....

Yeah. So much for objectivity. "Yeah, but, but, but, but...he used THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD." Ha. I read the whole paper. If you read it, you would wonder how someone could call THAT analysis as using the scientific method. I mean, it really is pathetically done, and the conclusions are outrageous.

But, hey, it was from HARVARD. So there you go. BTW, he isn't there anymore now. So does that give him less credibility?

You don't need verifiable, repeatable methods to prove something wrong, sometimes someone with knowledge of the subject can see the faults of the study without spending the time to prove it wrong through research. And yes, I have experience with studies, reports, published articles and I have even been published. It is not my expertise, but I understand the process ... both sides. I don't even care if the Harvard study is true or not, but anyone can challenge it, with or without data.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: They have been challenged, and they have been shown to be biased and flat wrong. That's the beauty of peer reviewed literature, anybody who can prove something with verifiable repeatable methods can disagree. Over the years, the evidence stacks up in favor of the truth. Using only facts to prove a hypothesis, and constantly evaluating and testing those hypothesis' leads to scientific theories, scientific theories can be tested over and over again until they reach the plateau of verifiable proof. Every once in a while a new study can shatter years of research, it does happen, but usually it simply adds a new unique understanding of a particular theory.

Doc--all I can say, is that I will take the advice of a "field" doctor, over any Ivy League study--every day of the week.
Just because I don't see many of them, doesn't mean I don't have respect for them.

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: Well, I say it is you who are jumping to conclusions because you are saying these people didn’t seek proper care because of the category they fall under. Are you seriously saying that young people die because they don’t seek medical care? Or that poor people die because of this? Why are the emergency rooms FILLED with minorities, poor people, and the like then? Is that not medical care? The study is stating that these groups make up a plurality of the uninsured, and that these groups typically do not receive the care that would have saved or prolonged their lives. If you have a problem with that, then write the journal and explain your point of view.

First of all, like I'm going to take the time to write to an obscure journal like the American Journal of Public Health, which is the "peer-reviewed organization" that published the article.

All of us in medicine know that there are crap journals out there that no one pays attention to. They are voluminous. There are a few journals that tend to present the more important and valid studies, like New England Journal of Medicine in the U.S. and Lancet in England. Even in those there is bias, but not to the extent of a rag like the American Journal of Public Health. Which is, as one might expect, is HIGHLY politicized, so...so much for "peer-review" when your peers are a bunch of left leaning physicians.


As I mentioned, I don't NEED to do a study to refute this piece of garbage. REAL LIFE already confirmed what should have been known. THE ISSUE ISN'T LACK OF INSURANCE. It is the BEHAVIOR OF THE TYPICAL UNINSURED PERSON.

Massachusetts GAVE health insurance to ALL people in Massachusetts. The former uninsured, instead of accessing the medical system in the way other people do, AND GETTING PREVENTATIVE CARE WHICH IS THE ISSUE, still went to the emergency room AS YOU SAID.


Passing universal health care is only going to minimally affect the death rate disparity because UNINSURANCE ISN'T THE ISSUE. It is the lifestyle choices that people make that go along with the choice to have no insurance.


Now if you want to have an INTELLECTUAL talk about how to put mechanisms in place to change the BEHAVIOR of people regarding how they access the health care system, THAT would be a fruitful discussion that could result in improvement.


If you want to have a discussion on how horrible we are as americans because we allow people at the rate of 44,789 people per year to DIE because we refuse to provide them health insurance, and we just MUST DO SOMETHING because we are so emotionally compassionate, you will spend a bunch of money (which BOTH parties are good at but the democrats have proven they are WAY better) AND you will do little to the death rate of those people.


So I would AGAIN encourage you to put down your twitterpated fascination with degrees and institutions and pseudoscience, and temporarily set aside your EMOTIONS that make that you MUST DO something, and THINK and evaluate this information so something REAL and EFFECTIVE can be done.

Crap like Grayson did...well, you applaud it for the revenge factor. Nice. There go your emotions again. While if detracts from the ability to REALLY help these 44,789 poor souls he purports to be so passionate about helping. Well, you suckered for it. He is a disingenuous jerk.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: .... Passing universal health care is only going to minimally affect the death rate disparity because UNINSURANCE ISN'T THE ISSUE. It is the lifestyle choices that people make that go along with the choice to have no insurance. Now if you want to have an INTELLECTUAL talk about how to put mechanisms in place to change the BEHAVIOR of people regarding how they access the health care system, THAT would be a fruitful discussion that could result in improvement. ......

curious as to what these mechanisms maybe?

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: curious as to what these mechanisms maybe?

It is SO hard to make a horse drink, not just bring him to water.

It would REALLY require an educational program to make people aware of the importance of preventative visits. Because preventative visits doesn't give you a short term feeling. It is a LONG term benefit.

And the people who are currently uninsured as a whole do NOT have the characteristic of taking a long term view of things, and are an instant-gratification type of person.


This has been WELL known, that uninsurance isn't the issue. Example:

we will PAY for ALL children's immunizations. Uninsurance isn't a problem
Immunization rates? Poor.

What should we DO about it?

It really got to the point where they actually devised plans to GO OUT TO THE HOMES and give shots. Can you imagine the expense of that. But those people wouldn't even inconvenience themselves to get off their butts and get their children to a clinic to get the shots for free.

Free prenatal health care. People didn't use it.

Know what they did in many places? MOVED IT INTO THE SCHOOL!


I mean, there are just SO many ALREADY KNOWN proofs that uninsurance isn't the issue. It is getting people to take a long-term, preventative view.


Oops. Except now Grayson is going to tell people that my plan for people is "don't get sick".

well, I was more thinking a darwinistic approach, in preventing the sickies to make more sickies. is there was some way to discourage that problem? especially in these days of cosmetic coverups, in which some of these issues - which cost money to solve - are hidden time bombs for the next generation. poor eye sight & crooked teeth being a fine example.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: well, I was more thinking a darwinistic approach, in preventing the sickies to make more sickies. is there was some way to discourage that problem? especially in these days of cosmetic coverups, in which some of these issues - which cost money to solve - are hidden time bombs for the next generation. poor eye sight & crooked teeth being a fine example.

The darwinistic approach is to cull the weak.

(Let 'em "die quickly")

Sick thinking.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 10-01-2009).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: The darwinistic approach is to cull the weak. (Let 'em "die quickly"?)

That about sums up the Washington republican position.

Ah... right.... those "evil republicans" who are out to kill everyone. Come on... how stupid.

Ted Kennedy killed a woman and he is was a democrat....

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: That about sums up the Washington republican position.

[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 10-01-2009).]

quote Originally posted by 2.5: The darwinistic approach is to cull the weak. (Let 'em "die quickly") Sick thinking.

not entirely - which is why I expanded to mention "keep the sickies from making more sickies".

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: First of all, like I'm going to take the time to write to an obscure journal like the American Journal of Public Health, which is the "peer-reviewed organization" that published the article. All of us in medicine know that there are crap journals out there that no one pays attention to. They are voluminous. There are a few journals that tend to present the more important and valid studies, like New England Journal of Medicine in the U.S. and Lancet in England. Even in those there is bias, but not to the extent of a rag like the American Journal of Public Health. Which is, as one might expect, is HIGHLY politicized, so...so much for "peer-review" when your peers are a bunch of left leaning physicians.

Why do you say the American Journal of Public Health is a lefty rag? Maybe it doesn't have the prestige of NEJM, but that doesn't make it either irrelevant or biased. Also, why should I take your word that it is either? I don't get it, what do you base this on?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: As I mentioned, I don't NEED to do a study to refute this piece of garbage. REAL LIFE already confirmed what should have been known. THE ISSUE ISN'T LACK OF INSURANCE. It is the BEHAVIOR OF THE TYPICAL UNINSURED PERSON. Massachusetts GAVE health insurance to ALL people in Massachusetts. The former uninsured, instead of accessing the medical system in the way other people do, AND GETTING PREVENTATIVE CARE WHICH IS THE ISSUE, still went to the emergency room AS YOU SAID.

I'm not going to argue that behavior isn't the issue in many of these groups high mortality rates. In fact I think you're probably right, but that doesn't encompass all of the uninsured, nor does it change the fact that in the end they didn't have insurance and perhaps they didn't seek care because they couldn't pay. The study shows the numbers of uninsured who could have lived had they had adequate medical care, and seeing as they didn't have insurance they didn't get care. What the motivation was that kept them from medical care hardly matters when in the end, they couldn't get it anyway.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Passing universal health care is only going to minimally affect the death rate disparity because UNINSURANCE ISN'T THE ISSUE. It is the lifestyle choices that people make that go along with the choice to have no insurance.

There is not always a choice to have no insurance, that's a false assumption. If you work for a small company, you probably can't get insurance. If you try to pay for it yourself with your low to middle class earnings you won't be able to afford it. Whether or not the mortality rate would decrease if everybody had insurance, you use Mass as an example. Mass has had this plan in place for less than three years. I haven't seen any studies about mortality rates yet, and even if I did Mass hasn't worked the system out yet. They are in the second phase now trying figure out ways to provide more incentives for Dr's to go into primary care, and looking for solutions to some other problem areas.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Now if you want to have an INTELLECTUAL talk about how to put mechanisms in place to change the BEHAVIOR of people regarding how they access the health care system, THAT would be a fruitful discussion that could result in improvement.

I agree.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: If you want to have a discussion on how horrible we are as americans because we allow people at the rate of 44,789 people per year to DIE because we refuse to provide them health insurance, and we just MUST DO SOMETHING because we are so emotionally compassionate, you will spend a bunch of money (which BOTH parties are good at but the democrats have proven they are WAY better) AND you will do little to the death rate of those people. So I would AGAIN encourage you to put down your twitterpated fascination with degrees and institutions and pseudoscience, and temporarily set aside your EMOTIONS that make that you MUST DO something, and THINK and evaluate this information so something REAL and EFFECTIVE can be done. Crap like Grayson did...well, you applaud it for the revenge factor. Nice. There go your emotions again. While if detracts from the ability to REALLY help these 44,789 poor souls he purports to be so passionate about helping. Well, you suckered for it. He is a disingenuous jerk.

Mmmehhh, insults and hyperbole.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 10-01-2009).]

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: That about sums up the Washington republican position.

Talk about insults and hyperbole. At least I gave you multiple, multiple reasons WHY I said what I said.

Your substantiation for the position so far has been, Grayson has balls.


Regarding Journal of Public Health being a lefty rag, I had no reason to even care about the existence of it until this "peer-reviewed article" from (all genuflect now please) a HARVARD professor (who is no longer a Harvard professor, which I never cared about in the first place but has you in awe) was cited by Grayson.

That is when I checked in to see who these "peers" were. PNHP members. I had to look that one up. Oh...Physicians for a National Health Plan.

While you seem to have no concern over the inherent bias and how it obviously came out in his "research", I think the majority of americans will find that something to consider when evaluating it.

ConnFiero:
I guess that you don't accept that you are on only equal footing (at best) here--no high ground?

Simply because you say something, it does not make it an accurate (or even believable) statement.

question:
Generally speaking, and understandably, it requires an opinion--


Is Harvard University considered liberal or conservative?

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Talk about insults and hyperbole. At least I gave you multiple, multiple reasons WHY I said what I said. Your substantiation for the position so far has been, Grayson has balls.

I don't see you condemning all the republicans that went to the floor and did the exact same thing. And what about Joe Wilson calling the president a liar in the middle of a televised speech to the chamber? Where was your outrage? The guy wasn't even right, there is specific language in the bill detailing that illegals are banned from any benefits under the plan. Some BS about controlling the border or sending them back doesn't change the fact that Wilson was the liar.

quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: Regarding Journal of Public Health being a lefty rag, I had no reason to even care about the existence of it until this "peer-reviewed article" from (all genuflect now please) a HARVARD professor (who is no longer a Harvard professor, which I never cared about in the first place but has you in awe) was cited by Grayson. That is when I checked in to see who these "peers" were. PNHP members. I had to look that one up. Oh...Physicians for a National Health Plan. While you seem to have no concern over the inherent bias and how it obviously came out in his "research", I think the majority of americans will find that something to consider when evaluating it.

Peers? You are entitled to send a response to the article aren't you? Doesn't that make you a peer? And guess what FL, MOST physicians support a public option. http://www.npr.org/template...hp?storyId=112818960
So there you go, YOU are the minority.

[This message has been edited by connecticutFIERO (edited 10-01-2009).]

I did not label them anything--that's up to them to decide what they are. I simply asked your opinion, since you seem to be knowledgable regarding Harvard.
If you prefer not to answer--just say so.
It was not a difficult question.

well, didja see how well Elle Woods fit in.....?

quote Originally posted by connecticutFIERO: There is a correlation between higher learning and liberal leanings. I'll give you that.

Really!
You must mean dem book lernins?

Die! Die quickly!

quote Originally posted by 2.5: Really! You must mean dem book lernins? Die! Die quickly!

yep--that's what he infers.

And, I'll take it--over a slow, drawn out, lingering death.

I hear there are some rumblings that it may be unconstitutional for the Federal Government to force people to buy health insurance.
Even if these Bozos can even pass this monster, it may die a slow death in the halls of justice.