Hixter

I seriously doubt that a $30 plan is going to offer much coverage - certainly not the type of coverage the average American needs. The UK National Health Service has a budget of over $200 billion for 60 million people, so that amounts to about $300 per month, or ten times the amount you're paying. And I've never visited England and not had several cabbies, pub landlords and train passengers begin to rant about the NHS as soon as they realize I'm an American. "It's a bloody mess, don't let the U.S. fall into the trap ..." As far as I'm concerned, the U.S. already has a socialized medical syst

That figure is waaaay out of the ballpark. Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person. Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP). U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP. In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,4

A bump to the dung heap of history, perhaps, where all the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense belongs. Perhaps the most tragic result of the last decade of politics (worldwide, not just in the United States) is that if someone says something frequently enough on the Internet it will be accepted as fact by an astounding number of people if it fits in with their political affiliation or worldview. WTC-7 couldn't have collapsed due to fire, Obama is a Muslim, Iraq was an illegal war, etc. and people insist on backing up their claims with handpicked bits of news, party line talking points and websites wit

Hey, save some of that Kool Aid for the rest of the Truthers!

Just what the country needs, an angry 9/11 Truther in the White House.

I'll bet you're off by a factor of at least 10.

Punctured her bladder how? My wife's water broke about 4 hours after I got home for Christmas after a 26-hour bus ride from basic training. We drove 45 miles to the hospital - even though there was one 2 miles away - because our doctor was at the remote hospital. We then proceeded to wait more that 26 hours for the baby to be born.

Ah, any parent whose child becomes pregnant out of wedlock is a failure and hopelessly overburdened. Gotcha.

And how can you prove your assertion to be true?

And where is this "evidence" that shows she was ignoring her parental duties?

It's pointless to discuss when we don't have the facts, but my points were all quite valid. Hospitals are full of first-time moms who rush to the hospital hours before they're ready. Experienced mothers aren't so antsy.

Wikipedia says it was 8 hours. I can think of a few reasons why a mother would do such a thing: 1) Woman get very comfortable with their doctor and want him/her to deliver the baby, not a stranger. 2) Her medical insurance might not have covered a delivery away from home. 3) She'd had 4 children already and knew she had plenty of time.

My kids are 21 and 22 now. Money would have made things easier, but we did fine without it. My ex was a lousy mother, skipping Christmas and birthday presents most years and rarely having any contact with the kids. Not 'owing' her anything because of support payments made things easier.

This is not about an invasion or democracy. It's about denying nuclear weapons to a threatening regime. And if you don't believe it's a threat, look what the Iranian leader just did in secular, NATO-member, Turkey: From today's L.A. Times: Departing from established practice of having visiting Muslim heads of state pray in a smaller mosque in Istanbul, the government allowed Ahmadinejad to pray in the Blue Mosque, Turkey's symbol of tolerant Ottoman Islam. With permission from Turkish authorities, he also allowed Iranian television to videotape him during the entire prayer, in violation of

I don't want to guess, I want him to tell me. If he's trying to win my vote, that is. Israel has announced that they will not let Iran go nuclear. If Iran doesn't halt their program, Israel is prepared to launch a unilateral strike. Any strike by Israel would be viewed as an attack by the U.S. (and Iran has said as much) because the U.S. supports and arms Israel. They'd probably overfly Iraq anyway, so that would require U.S. complicity by allowing Israeli planes safe passage. So the U.S. will try to hold off the Israelis as long as possible, but if sanctions fail or Iran doesn't back down y

What makes this such a contentious issue is that it isn't nearly as black and white as you'd like it to be. There are many, many shades of gray, and most of them favor the woman's position. A woman can lie and say she's using birth control, but the man will still be liable for child support if she gives birth. A woman can terminate the pregnancy at any (legal) time with the father having no say in the matter. This may seem somewhat reasonable in a one-night-stand situation, but not necessarily so in a long-term relationship or marriage. In some cases, a man is required to pay child suppo

I raised both of my children from infancy to adulthood by myself. Without a dime of support from their mother. Tens of thousands of men have done the same. Women are not the only members of the species with the parenting instinct.

Most people aren't single-issue voters, so abortion isn't necessarily a showstopper nor is it "everything she stands for," I would assume. Besides, they're not voting for Palin and her issues, they're voting for McCain.

It speaks to the 50% of the population that is female.

I don't think you can call a blue-collar worker on an hourly wage an "oilman." Unless the guy who changes my oil at Jiffy Lube is also an oilman.

It's a good question that we're debating whether a working mom can handle what has always been a man's job? Aren't we all trying to make progress here?

Looks like it's a done deal, according to CNN. Interesting ...

There was plenty of pre-positioned equipment and preparation. The National Guard did a great job right from the start and the Coast Guard did an OUTSTANDING job. It's just been swept away to make political hay out of disaster and suffering.

Sure, and that's where the city government failed. My hometown was wiped out by Hurricane Charley in 2004. Charley was a stronger hurricane than Katrina, but there were no levies to worry about. Tens of thousands of buildings were destroyed and residents were without water or electricity for 2 weeks, but everyone remained calm, the local authorities maintained control until the troops and FEMA arrived and there was minimal loss of life and no organized looting. Many people neglected to evacuate, but they learned their lessons. The next storm that threatened the area virtually emptied out th

The flooding began almost immediately and was responsible for most of the deaths. If anyone gave an all-clear to return to a flooded area he/she was a complete idiot.