Mr. Martinez seems to be proceeding from the view that Russia is a typical declining power whose legitimate sphere of influence is being poached by aggressive Americans and NATO, and we should therefore (and somewhat condescendingly) be sensitive to Russia's feelings, while not asking Russia to be equally sensitive to anyone else's feelings. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. Soviet Russia was a brutal, totalitarian occupying power which pressed the face of Central Europe under its hobnailed boot from 1945-1989. Poland is no more a part of Russia's legitimate sphere of influence than Vichy France was part of Germany's legitimate sphere of influence. The desire of the Central European membership in NATO cannot be understood or evaluated without appreciating the meaning of Budapest in '56 and Prague in '68. Russia's occupation of Eastern Europe will require from Russia what Germany has done over the last 50 years. Their neighbors will not trust them until two generations of atonement have passed for their totalitarian occupation.

But health care reform ought to save us money, rather than increase costs. It shouldn't cause us any pain. Changing the system means we stop screwing ourselves. Everybody who's worried about the missing "hard truths" is simply avoiding the real hard truth: we've been fucking ourselves over--massively--with private insurance for absolutely no reason at all. The hard truth is that we could have been doing things better the whole time, but we decided not to, because we were stupid. There really is no lie about hidden costs.

The first segment about Biden and the Russians by the 2 bloggers was truly sad. Matt even went so far as to imply that truthful commentaries have no place in diplomacy. Amatuers, both! When Reagan qualified the USSR an evil empire (which it was), I imagine Matt cringing and maybe even calling for an impeachment. Look guys, look at Biden´s comments as part of a mixed-message game, or ever better yet, a comeuppance for Putin´s invasion (yes it was Putin´s) of Georgia.

Simon says: I agree with these guys: The birthers are truly crazy Well yes, but I think the more interesting point is the political strategizing which goes into linking crazies with reasonable concerns. Birthers are linked with people concerned about illegal immigration. Remember Janeanne Garafola linking teabaggers with racists who just didn't want a black president? This stuff sticks in our sound-bite nation and they know it. As for health care reform, these two spelled out in almost every way possible why the system will never, ever be efficient and cost effective. Economic models disappear when you have a mandate that everyone and everything needs to be covered and that that coverage is a right. Well every model except socialism.

you nailed it, Ray.

As for health care reform, these two spelled out in almost every way possible why the system will never, ever be efficient and cost effective.

I don't understand. How can we improve the health care system without reform? Nothing is perfectly efficient, but there is definitely room for improvement. Are you saying it will never be perfect so why even try?

Economic models disappear when you have a mandate that everyone and everything needs to be covered and that that coverage is a right. Well every model except socialism.

Nearly every other modern nation (not just the socialist ones) has managed to find a way to provide health care to the entire country without making "economic models disappear" (not entirely sure what you mean by this)....and it costs less than our broken system. Obviously we cannot cover exotic, expensive treatments for anyone who wants them, but we do not have to pay way more than any other country for worse coverage than any industrialized nation like we do now.

Quoting messwithtexas: Obviously we cannot cover exotic, expensive treatments for anyone who wants them.

I don't know much about the subject, but I think what you say is not obvious. I see the US Government as being more responsive than an insurance company -- and more responsive than the typical European government. Won't everyone will demand what they see as the best care? If some of the people who don't get the very best care turn out to be people of color, then won't this be cast as a racial issue? How do we resist giving everyone the care they think they deserve?

DHS still has a threat level (now orange). See the bottom right corner of http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm

Quoting messwithtexas: Nearly every other modern nation (not just the socialist ones) has managed to find a way to provide health care to the entire country without making "economic models disappear" (not entirely sure what you mean by this)....and it costs less than our broken system. Obviously we cannot cover exotic, expensive treatments for anyone who wants them, but we do not have to pay way more than any other country for worse coverage than any industrialized nation like we do now.

I dont think "we" and "our" apply to the United States anymore. If democrats want universal coverage, change the federal system so their people can establish a collective system that provides all the social programs they desire. Then allow republicans to do the same within governing principals of their choosing. The tide looks like it is changing and republicans will win more house seats in 2010. Even if we get a majority and shut down the Obama spending programs and balance the budget, the country will still be $4 to $5 trillion further in debt. Then 4 to 6 yrs later, spurred by an overreaction to the crisis of the day, democrats

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont think "we" and "our" apply to the United States anymore.

Applies just fine in my book. Oddly, enough, it applied just fine when the president was someone I hadn't voted for, too. Maybe I'm just more of a Real American? So if you no longer consider yourself part of the US, are you planning to emigrate? Or just whine a lot?

Quoting DWAnderson: DHS still has a threat level (now orange). See the bottom right corner of http://www.dhs.gov/index.shtm

It's only yellow. Don't alarm the populace!

Shouldn't there be a single poll to see which party wins the tinfoil hat prize this round? This would be a little unfair to the birthers, whose pet conspiracy would have been much easier to pull off, but still.

I propose a very feudal solution to the problem of healthcare reform: end all forms of healthcare. Instead of discussing the benefits of private versus public "options" why not close down every hospital and medical practise in the United States? Come on chaps, you've all watched HOUSE, DIY healthcare is simple: morphine for the pain, razor blades for the incisions and a durable roll of loo paper for the blood is all you need to perform your own operations. Think about it: liberals will be happy about the "community" aspect of all chipping in to heal old man Sanders down the street. Conservatives and libertarians will be happy about lack of government and overall reduction of cost. Problem solved.

Quoting Toryentalist: I propose a very feudal solution to the problem of healthcare reform: end all forms of healthcare. Instead of discussing the benefits of private versus public "options" why not close down every hospital and medical practise in the United States? Come on chaps, you've all watched HOUSE, DIY healthcare is simple: morphine for the pain, razor blades for the incisions and a durable roll of loo paper for the blood is all you need to perform your own operations. Think about it: liberals will be happy about the "community" aspect of all chipping in to heal old man Sanders down the street. Conservatives and libertarians will be happy about lack of government and overall reduction of cost. Problem solved.

Yeah, and once we get over our silly hangup with cannibalism (*rolls eyes*), there won't be any more hungry people, either. Run with it! You could be the new Ron Paul!

Quoting stephanie: Applies just fine in my book. Oddly, enough, it applied just fine when the president was someone I hadn't voted for, too. Maybe I'm just more of a Real American?

Call yourself what you want. The fact that democrats would not allow republicans to opt out of their government run health care system proves to me that it will cost more than a private system. Obama says free market health care is going to get more and more expensive and single payer can contain these cost increases. If democrats truly believed this they would create a system that individuals or states could voluntarily opt into. BTW, in the spirit of we are all in this together, according to the casualty reports the DOD sends by email whenever an American soldier is killed in action, the last 12 killed are from the following states: NC(2) VA MISS(2) PA TENN(2) FLA OK WASH and ILLINOIS.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: BTW, in the spirit of we are all in this together, according to the casualty reports the DOD sends by email whenever an American soldier is killed in action, the last 12 killed are from the following states: NC(2) VA MISS(2) PA TENN(2) FLA OK WASH and ILLINOIS.

Blue state (2), blue state, red state (2), blue state, red state (2), blue state, red state, blue state, blue state. (source) Your point is well-taken: we are indeed all in this together.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The fact that democrats would not allow republicans to opt out of their government run health care system proves to me that it will cost more than a private system.

Um, it proves to me that no one has seriously suggested such a thing, nor would they. You do know that your level of identification with the label "republican" is really, really weird, especially given that your ideas aren't even represented by the mainstream of the party.

BTW, in the spirit of we are all in this together, according to the casualty reports the DOD sends by email whenever an American soldier is killed in action, the last 12 killed are from the following states: NC(2) VA MISS(2) PA TENN(2) FLA OK WASH and ILLINOIS.

Point?

Quoting stephanie: Um, it proves to me that no one has seriously suggested such a thing, nor would they. You do know that your level of identification with the label "republican" is really, really weird, especially given that your ideas aren't even represented by the mainstream of the party.

I dont think it is right that democrats are forcing their mega deficit, involved in every aspect of the economy, federal government on the minority in the country. If the people of Massachusetts want a single payer system, let them have it and pay for it. Dont force it on other states. Here is a video, via Drudge, of minority constituents on Long Island at a town hall meeting with their democrat congressman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOLs7Cybnqw at the 2:15 mark a woman says "it is disgraceful the way your government is running things". My sentiments exactly.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I dont think it is right that democrats are forcing their mega deficit, involved in every aspect of the economy, federal government on the minority in the country.

It's, again, weird that you think the deficit is not a "republican" affair and attributable only to a certain segment of Americans. However, I'm curious (or, actually, doing something really boring, so seeking a diversion), (1) what expenses do you think are appropriate for a government to take on rather than the individuals; and (2) on what basis would you say that your personal opinion on such matters should prevail over that of the majority?

If the people of Massachusetts want a single payer system, let them have it and pay for it. Dont force it on other states.

The people of Massachusetts can't force a national health care system, obviously. The Congress of the United States can, though, and has the Constitutional power to do so. As I said before, I don't see any great sign that the Constitution is going to be amended any time soon, but feel free to try and pass an amendment or six. It's not like single-payer health care is actually imminent or anything (and given

Quoting stephanie: It's, again, weird that you think the deficit is not a "republican" affair and attributable only to a certain segment of Americans.

All of the health care proposals include financing (taxes), so they're deficit-neutral, and they're all $100B or else. Compare that to $700B+ for annual defense spending.

Quoting stephanie: It's, again, weird that you think the deficit is not a "republican" affair and attributable only to a certain segment of Americans.

However, I'm curious (or, actually, doing something really boring, so seeking a diversion), (1) what expenses do you think are appropriate for a government to take on rather than the individuals;

the ones the government performed back in the begin times, when the constitution was written and adopted. I think a free market system, where contracts to exchanged goods and services are agreed to and enforced, is far superior to the current system where goverment places multiple restrictions on what parties can agree to in their market transactions. Regarding health insurance I dont see why the government should be able to prevent sellers of insurance from denying coverage to individuals who are not healthy or from charging different rates. If anything, it would encourage people to exercise and be slim if those attributes would be rewarded with lower priced health insurance.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: the ones the government performed back in the begin times, when the constitution was written and adopted.

The "begin times"? Is this a term of art among secessionists or something? You might be surprised at how extensive a range of services such a claim would allow, in fact. But in any case the Constitution, of course, contains no such limitation, and the fact that a responsibility at one time was performed by the state rather than the federal government does not mean that it is not an appropriate responsibility for a government rather than individuals alone (which is actually what I asked). Also, again, on what basis would you claim that the functions performed by the government should not change after some early year (say 1800)? Can we go back to the military expenditures of that year? The foreign commitments? (For the record, I don't actually think we should, but your "logic" would seem to support doing so.)

I think a free market system, where contracts to exchanged goods and services are agreed to and enforced, is far superior to the current system where goverment places multiple restrictions on what parties can agree to

Quoting stephanie: Okay. I rather think this is not the best way to go about it either, which is why I prefer single payer to trying to work with the insurance companies. What about people who can't afford health insurance, would not be able to buy insurance for any cost, who will lose their insurance, etc. Don't care? Sucks for them? Or do you have some alternative proposal?

Establish government and charity funded health care clinics and hospitals throughout the country. People pay what they can, based on bank balances and tax returns. Regarding single payer, which I presume puts private insurance companies out of business, I dont see where the government gets the right to stop or regulate the purchase of health insurance on the free market. Would have been great if the Senate judiciary committee had asked the wise Latina if the constitution grants both the right to privacy and the right to freely exchange goods and services with another party.

Quoting messwithtexas: I don't understand. How can we improve the health care system without reform? Nothing is perfectly efficient, but there is definitely room for improvement. Are you saying it will never be perfect so why even try?

Nearly every other modern nation (not just the socialist ones) has managed to find a way to provide health care to the entire country without making "economic models disappear" (not entirely sure what you mean by this)....and it costs less than our broken system. Obviously we cannot cover exotic, expensive treatments for anyone who wants them, but we do not have to pay way more than any other country for worse coverage than any industrialized nation like we do now.

No, I don't think we can improve the health care system. I think whatever Washington does to tinker around with the existing system is going to end up worse than what we currently have. The reason I say this is that I believe that the government does absolutely nothing efficiently and cost effectively. As far as modern nations that provide health care for their entire country not being socialist....well that is exactly what socialism

Quoting badhatharry: No, I don't think we can improve the health care system. I think whatever Washington does to tinker around with the existing system is going to end up worse than what we currently have. The reason I say this is that I believe that the government does absolutely nothing efficiently and cost effectively.

As far as modern nations that provide health care for their entire country not being socialist....well that is exactly what socialism is, so I don't understand how you can make that statement.

And the economic models I was referring to are the concepts of supply and demand. When you make bold promises that everyone will be taken care of no matter what, supply and demand goes away, and with them, price corrections....not to mention concepts like personal responsibility. These are all part of the free market.
Further, the current system is not free from government involvement. Just look at Medicare and Medicaid. I wonder what impact those programs have on the way our medical needs are met.

And finally, I'd like some proof that socialized medicine will cost less than our current system, and remember costs don't just come in the way

Question: what would the role of competition be in the health-care reform scenario that is being contemplated?

ToAemjeff: I don't agree that using the word socialism implies any judgement on my part. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, guess what? Its pretty easy to argue that pure free-market capitalism serves needs that don't always align with those of health-care consumers. Absolutely correct! But not always[/i] doesn't mean never. I would argue that the free market has produced research which has saved lives. That research and the fine medical professionals our country continues to produce may not have existed without the incentive for investment and eventual rewards. Also, I would counter that socialized medicine will serve needs (read bureaucratic) that won't always align with those of health care consumers. In fact, I'd argue that health care is a perfect counterexample to orthodox libertarian arguments.
(When you have a significant, immediate need for health care you're certainly not a classical rational agent and generally have very little bargaining power. Health insurance is generally not transacted by consumers, except indirectly; and when it is, the power imbalance between the parties is overwhelming.) I would posit that had the market been able to operate freely, insurance companies would have had incentive

Quoting Unit: Question: what would the role of competition be in the health-care reform scenario that is being contemplated?

Since single-payer doesn't seem to be on the table, in what sense is is the role of competition being reevaluated? If a public option is put on the table, wouldn't that increase competition?

Quoting AemJeff: Since single-payer doesn't seem to be on the table, in what sense is is the role of competition being reevaluated?

If a public option is put on the table, wouldn't that increase competition?

Well maybe unfair competition since the govt doesn't abide to the same rules as the other players...no but seriously, can someone enlighten me?

[quote=badhatharry;123642]ToAemjeff: I don't agree that using the word socialism implies any judgement on my part. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, guess what? Its pretty easy to argue that pure free-market capitalism serves needs that don't always align with those of health-care consumers. Absolutely correct! But not always[/i] doesn't mean never. I would argue that the free market has produced research which has saved lives. That research and the fine medical professionals our country continues to produce may not have existed without the incentive for investment and eventual rewards. Also, I would counter that socialized medicine will serve needs (read bureaucratic) that won't always align with those of health care consumers. In fact, I'd argue that health care is a perfect counterexample to orthodox libertarian arguments.
(When you have a significant, immediate need for health care you're certainly not a classical rational agent and generally have very little bargaining power. Health insurance is generally not transacted by consumers, except indirectly; and when it is, the power imbalance between the parties is overwhelming.) I would posit that had the market been able to operate freely, insurance companies would have had incentive

Quoting Unit: Well maybe unfair competition since the govt doesn't abide to the same rules as the other players...no but seriously, can someone enlighten me?

I have to say that I really don't care if the system is fair to the insurers if it tilts the table toward consumers.

Quoting AemJeff: I have to say that I really don't care if the system is fair to the insurers if it tilts the table toward consumers.

Unfair competition is unfair to the consumers, not the insurers.

Quoting Unit: Unfair competition is unfair to the consumers, not the insurers.

I think you have far too much faith in the invisible hand, Unit.

Quoting claymisher: All of the health care proposals include financing (taxes), so they're deficit-neutral, and they're all $100B or else. Compare that to $700B+ for annual defense spending.

So, what you're saying is that you want to surrender to the terrorists, so that every American can (must) have free sex change operations?

Quoting AemJeff: I think you have far too much faith in the invisible hand, Unit.

Oh, if you'd read Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah, you'd understand.

Quoting claymisher: Oh, if you'd read Ibn Khaldun's Muqaddimah, you'd understand.

The Laffer Curve is Muslin?!?!?! Where is Ronald Reagan's birf cirtifikit???

Quoting bjkeefe: The Laffer Curve is Muslin?!?!?!

Perhaps. You should read it yourself, preferably in the original Arabic. It is a marvel of subtlety and insight. Or you could save yourself the trouble read something written in the last ten years or so. People have learned a lot over the centuries.

Where is Ronald Reagan's birf cirtifikit???

its in ur house EATIN ur f00d#!/!!!111!

Quoting AemJeff: I think you have far too much faith in the invisible hand, Unit.

Maybe, but why disregard a powerful force for progress and innovation? It's pretty clear that the right understands how markets work only in words (if at all) and we were told that the left was the one who really understood markets. So were are the market-oriented reforms?

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Establish government and charity funded health care clinics and hospitals throughout the country. People pay what they can, based on bank balances and tax returns.

We have some of that already, of course, but in your "to each, according to his means" health care reform plan, would this cover regular health care or just the kinds of things people can get from an emergency room visit now?

Regarding single payer, which I presume puts private insurance companies out of business, I dont see where the government gets the right to stop or regulate the purchase of health insurance on the free market.

It's not a matter of stopping the purchase of health insurance. It's providing payment for certain health services. If there's a market for services above and beyond that, people could buy policies if they wanted and if companies were willing to sell them. The fact that a market for certain products might not exist is no different than the fact that various other markets for all sorts of things don't exist under current circumstances.

Would have been great if the Senate judiciary committee had asked the wise

Quoting badhatharry: No, I don't think we can improve the health care system. I think whatever Washington does to tinker around with the existing system is going to end up worse than what we currently have. The reason I say this is that I believe that the government does absolutely nothing efficiently and cost effectively.

I'm not sold on the current plans yet, though I'm inclined to think we have to start somewhere. But pretending that everything is on the table for the sake of discussion, on what basis do you think that we can't improve the current system? I mean, the government is involved a lot already, so do you think that we could at least improve it by getting rid of that involvement? (Such arguments always sound pretty much faith-based to me, as they usually go rather like "the gov't makes things worse? Why? Because I believe it does" but I'll give you a chance to make the argument and consider it. However, what this argument also makes me wonder about is whether you are claiming that -- even considering the cost savings -- the US system as it currently works is better than that existing

Quoting stephanie: We have some of that already, of course, but in your "to each, according to his means" health care reform plan, would this cover regular health care or just the kinds of things people can get from an emergency room visit now?

in the context of "how do you provide health care to the poor" obviously the government and charity funded clinic and hospitals would have to provide all the care the patients need. Costs would hopefully be kept low by capping the pay of those who do the work, limiting malpractice claims, economies of scale and rationing care. A good metric that the clinics and hospitals are adequately run would be how many people pay to use it. I understand the GWB admin was pushing this approach. Judging by the fact that clinics for the poor are never mentioned by the media and democrat politicians, I assume they oppose the idea. Since the state run media does not address the subject, I can only speculate as to their reasons why.

Quoting stephanie: It's not a matter of stopping the purchase of health insurance. It's providing payment for certain health services. If there's a market for

Quoting stephanie: I'm not sold on the current plans yet, though I'm inclined to think we have to start somewhere. But pretending that everything is on the table for the sake of discussion, on what basis do you think that we can't improve the current system? I mean, the government is involved a lot already, so do you think that we could at least improve it by getting rid of that involvement? (Such arguments always sound pretty much faith-based to me, as they usually go rather like "the gov't makes things worse? Why? Because I believe it does" but I'll give you a chance to make the argument and consider it.

Look at how poorly the post office is run. Lines in the lobby are frequently long. There is little to no automation of the services. None of the three post offices I use have a working stamp dispensing machine. Vending type machines could easily dispense certified letters and packages. UPS and FedEx are not allowed to deliver to a PO Box or apartment mail box. I dont follow the desire of democrats to force everyone into a centralized system. On the one hand they say universal

Quoting Unit: Maybe, but why disregard a powerful force for progress and innovation? It's pretty clear that the right understands how markets work only in words (if at all) and we were told that the left was the one who really understood markets. So were are the market-oriented reforms?

the government does not allow them. In NJ you cannot buy a health savings account. Patients are not allowed to sign an agreement with their Dr that they will limit any malpractice claims to a certain amount. Private hospitals are not allowed to refuse to provide care to those who cannot pay for it ( guessing ).

Its so great to hear a hard core libertarian like Matt Welch defend a libertarian institution like NATO - next up Matt defends drug prohibition as libertarian...

Quoting DenvilleSteve: in the context of "how do you provide health care to the poor" obviously the government and charity funded clinic and hospitals would have to provide all the care the patients need. Costs would hopefully be kept low by capping the pay of those who do the work, limiting malpractice claims, economies of scale and rationing care.

Okay. Let's flesh this out -- create the health care system for DenvilleLand that you can use in trying to sell your opt-out of the US plan. We have gov't funded hospitals and clinics for the poor. Who gets to go to these? Does it vary depending on how expensive your health care needs are? People who qualify get to have all their health care paid for? Or only certain things? Who decides with the rationing and all? People who are employed by these hospitals and clinics are paid by the gov't. Sounds kind of socialist.

A good metric that the clinics and hospitals are adequately run would be how many people pay to use it.

Oh, you can do that too? A sliding scale charged based on what one can afford? (I think that's what you

Quoting DenvilleSteve:
I confess I dont know because I have never studied, let alone read the constitution.

A present if not a necessity:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html It's easy and interesting to read... everyone should do so. I'm a citizen (just like you, I presume) with a cellphone that has scrollable U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence apps... always handy and informative.

Quoting malk: Its so great to hear a hard core libertarian like Matt Welch defend a libertarian institution like NATO - next up Matt defends drug prohibition as libertarian...

There are libertarian hawks, and even if there weren't you don't have to be a hawk to think that a defense pact against communist expansion is pro-free markets. edit: ...unless you just mean NATO in its present day, somewhat superfluous role? But Welch basically opposes that.

Quoting stephanie: Neither. The government pays for certain services. If you want more, you can pay for them out of your own pocket or buy insurance which would cover them.

Too vague without examples. What services would the democrat health care plan provide and what are some of the "if you want more" services? And individuals still pay a monthly fee for the government health care plan? Can private insurers offer a competing plan?

Quoting stephanie: Okay. Let's flesh this out -- create the health care system for DenvilleLand that you can use in trying to sell your opt-out of the US plan.

We have gov't funded hospitals and clinics for the poor. Who gets to go to these? Does it vary depending on how expensive your health care needs are?

People who qualify get to have all their health care paid for? Or only certain things? Who decides with the rationing and all?

The government funded clinic or hospital charges for its services based on its cost of doing business. Patients pay a percentage of the bill based on their means ( tax returns and financial assets - which is currently required when applying for charity care in NJ ). All conditions are treated, although rationing is used similar to what is done in Canada to control costs. The benefit to all the citizens not using the government facilities is free market principals are permitted in the private health care sector. Low cost health insurance can be sold to people who keep themselves healthy. Private hospitals have less overhead because they no longer have to treat the indigent.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: I would like to know what language in the constitution ...

Had to figure this talking point was not arrived at independently.

Quoting DenvilleSteve: Too vague without examples. What services would the democrat health care plan provide and what are some of the "if you want more" services? And individuals still pay a monthly fee for the government health care plan? Can private insurers offer a competing plan?

I didn't propose any plan, so I don't know what you are going on about here. My point was that whatever the plan people could still add on. They aren't being prohibited from paying for or seeking insurance for extras, assuming someone is willing to sell. Your reference to "democrat health care plan" is bad English and silly, given that we were not even talking about a specific proposal. It's kind of sad that you seem to get so much personal esteem from identifying as a member of a group (Republicans) who you seem to be completely at odds with, other than in your desire to slam Democrats, and which really don't have any meaning other than as part of the current political system of the country you want to leave, anyway. .

Quoting DenvilleSteve: The government funded clinic or hospital charges for its services based on its cost of doing business. Patients pay a percentage of the bill based on their means ( tax returns and financial assets - which is currently required when applying for charity care in NJ ). All conditions are treated, although rationing is used similar to what is done in Canada to control costs. The benefit to all the citizens not using the government facilities is free market principals are permitted in the private health care sector. Low cost health insurance can be sold to people who keep themselves healthy. Private hospitals have less overhead because they no longer have to treat the indigent.

I think you are setting yourself up for accusations of socialism and unfair gov't competition and the like. "people who keep themselves healthy" You do know it's not simply a matter of choice, yes, but luck, too?

Hola!!

That's what friends are for...

Although, in "the interest of full disclosure" Mexico requires not only that a president be native born, but that s/he be born of at least one native born parent. On the other hand, there's only one term. No re-election ever.

Quoting claymisher: Perhaps. You should read it yourself, preferably in the original Arabic. It is a marvel of subtlety and insight. Or you could save yourself the trouble read something written in the last ten years or so. People have learned a lot over the centuries.

You know, I recently went through this craze where I was reading through some of the classics, such as the Amalgest, Revolution of heavenly spheres, and Principia. Was a big mistake, some of it was wrong(though surprisingly little), and it took ten times the effort to follow as something written today that covers the same concepts. Old books are overrated.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: You know, I recently went through this craze where I was reading through some of the classics, such as the Amalgest, Revolution of heavenly spheres, and Principia. Was a big mistake, some of it was wrong(though surprisingly little), and it took ten times the effort to follow as something written today that covers the same concepts.

Well, I'm impressed. Tell me you read 'em in Latin!

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Old books are overrated.

It's true! It's the ideas that count. You don't get bonus points for degree of difficulty. If the ideas are any good they can always be refined and/or restated more clearly. And if they're bunk they're best left alone (eg Hegel). I'd rather learn calculus from a skilled calculus teacher than from the very first book written on it.

I know zero latin. I read the translations from the "Great Books of the Western World" series. I am horrible at picking up languages, I am told about half of what I heard up to when I was seven or so was spanish, but for whatever reason, I only ever picked up on english, and even that took alot of effort. Anyways, how many people under thirty actually know latin anymore? I am told teaching latin went out of style by the 80's. And why bother? Seems to me there are plenty of other more worthwhile things to spend your time on.

a basic intro to latin from my 8th grade teacher has been invaluable to me ever since. particularly in the sciences - understanding the basics of latin roots and constructions gives you a pretty big advantage on comprehending new material.

Quoting popcorn_karate: a basic intro to latin from my 8th grade teacher has been invaluable to me ever since. particularly in the sciences - understanding the basics of latin roots and constructions gives you a pretty big advantage on comprehending new material.

I quite agree. It is one of my many minor regrets, one that increases each year, that I have not learned more Latin. A long time ago, I picked up a copy of Amo, Amas, Amat and More, which was both quite handy and an utter delight to browse. Plus, I'm a big fan of any well-turned phrase, and Latin has them in spades. How can you beat Veni, vidi, vici, for example? Or res ipsa loquitur? Quod erat demonstrandum!

Quoting bjkeefe: I quite agree. It is one of my many minor regrets, one that increases each year, that I have not learned more Latin.

A long time ago, I picked up a copy of Amo, Amas, Amat and More, which was both quite handy and an utter delight to browse.

Plus, I'm a big fan of any well-turned phrase, and Latin has them in spades. How can you beat Veni, vidi, vici, for example? Or res ipsa loquitur?

Quod erat demonstrandum!

I took three years of Latin in high school and by the time I graduated from college all I remembered was ad- means to and con- means with.

Latin has had a revival movement in US schools over the past couple of decades. I have mixed feelings. I'm reluctant to discover a kid from pursuing an interest in an ancient language, but except for very special cases of future classics majors, I can't see opting for Latin over another living Romance language, like Spanish, Italian or French. With those languages, you get all the benefits of Latin vocabulary plus the ability to communicate with other living beings. Obviously, I'm a big supporter of Spanish for the USA, but any living language is good. For example, we should be encouraging more kids to learn Chinese, Arabic and other widely-used languages. Substituting Latin for any living language is likely to be something the student will regret when it dawns on her (years later) that she could have devoted that time and energy to learning a language she can use. I wish I had a nickel for every adult who has told me "I so wish I learned Spanish when I was young." Haven't heard any express similar regrets regarding Latin or Greek.

Quoting Wonderment: Latin has had a revival movement in US schools over the past couple of decades. I have mixed feelings.

I'm reluctant to discover a kid from pursuing an interest in an ancient language, but except for very special cases of future classics majors, I can't see opting for Latin over another living Romance language, like Spanish, Italian or French.

With those languages, you get all the benefits of Latin vocabulary plus the ability to communicate with other living beings.

Obviously, I'm a big supporter of Spanish for the USA, but any living language is good.

For example, we should be encouraging more kids to learn Chinese, Arabic and other widely-used languages.

Substituting Latin for any living language is likely to be something the student will regret when it dawns on her (years later) that she could have devoted that time and energy to learning a language she can use.

I wish I had a nickel for every adult who has told me "I so wish I learned Spanish when I was young." Haven't heard any express similar regrets regarding Latin or Greek.

Having studied Latin in high school and college and graduate school (medieval latin...ugh), and now just

Quoting Wonderment: Latin has had a revival movement in US schools over the past couple of decades. I have mixed feelings.

I'm reluctant to discover a kid from pursuing an interest in an ancient language, but except for very special cases of future classics majors, I can't see opting for Latin over another living Romance language, like Spanish, Italian or French.

With those languages, you get all the benefits of Latin vocabulary plus the ability to communicate with other living beings.

Obviously, I'm a big supporter of Spanish for the USA, but any living language is good.

For example, we should be encouraging more kids to learn Chinese, Arabic and other widely-used languages.

Substituting Latin for any living language is likely to be something the student will regret when it dawns on her (years later) that she could have devoted that time and energy to learning a language she can use.

I wish I had a nickel for every adult who has told me "I so wish I learned Spanish when I was young." Haven't heard any express similar regrets regarding Latin or Greek.

Given the choice between being able to become instantly fluent in Latin or some other

And if you're only talking about a choice of a high-school elective, say, then I refer you to claymisher's post and point out that about the same thing has been said by many people who took three years of high school Spanish, French, Russian, etc.
__________________

That's true, but only part of the story. If a kid goes through the whole 4-year high school Spanish program (often with an AP component) and does some immersion in a foreign or domestic Spanish-speaking environment, s/he is very unlikely to share ClayM's experience. On the other hand, 4 years of Latin is only communicatively advantageous if you have a time machine. Also, many students who do the 2 or 3-year high school program in Spanish or Chinese or French will go on to take a placement test at college and continue their studies. They do not start again from scratch and there are plenty of opportunities at college to become fluent.

But I don't think one can study the romance languages or even know English very well (which is almost a romance language when you consider the huge number of words derived from Latin and French) without knowing Latin, or something about Latin and Roman civilization.

Depends what you mean by "study" them. If you mean speak them well, you're wrong. If you mean have a sophisticated grad-school understanding of history, culture, religion, etc. you may have a bit of a point, but I think you're still overstating considerably.

Quoting Wonderment: That's true, but only part of the story. If a kid goes through the whole 4-year high school Spanish program (often with an AP component) and does some immersion in a foreign or domestic Spanish-speaking environment, s/he is very unlikely to share ClayM's experience.

On the other hand, 4 years of Latin is only communicatively advantageous if you have a time machine.

Also, many students who do the 2 or 3-year high school program in Spanish or Chinese or French will go on to take a placement test at college and continue their studies. They do not start again from scratch and there are plenty of opportunities at college to become fluent.

Generally agreed. Still, I would maintain that studying Latin (in high school or younger) (1) need not be an either/or choice; and (2) could nearly as well prepare at student for various programs of future study, especially if the student spent as much time in as rich an environment as did your example of the four-year student with the immersion opportunity. And if you want to say that the latter is not realistic, then I would say, fine -- in that case, the student is

The bottom line for me is that outside of the real basics, I would rather have a young student be allowed and encouraged to study whatever most interested him or her at the moment. I think students tend to get more out of what they study in these cases, and I also think, if nothing else, they learn better how to learn, which is what I consider of paramount importance at a young age.

If you offer it, they will come. Some problems: Impoverished school districts cut or never began many of interesting programs (music, art, languages), over-emphasize competitive sports programs like all-male football, and concentrate most resources on college-bound and special needs kids. The many millions who are passionate about subjects and careers that require lots of training but no college degree are neglected. Of course, Uncle Sam wants and often gets them. Somewhat off topic, the economic crisis has been great for militarism. One of my daughters has many friends in the Navy. They are all young men and women who enlisted to escape MacJobs in depressed towns five or so years ago, right out of high school. Now after swearing on everything holy that

At least for a minority, the Navy has some very good opportunities. The Navy has one of the best Nuclear Engineer training program in the world, and I hear their Civil Engineering programs are decent as well. For your average joe, yes, the Navy offers very little, but thats true for most things.

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

Not much to disagree with there.

Quoting Wonderment: Depends what you mean by "study" them. If you mean speak them well, you're wrong.

If you mean have a sophisticated grad-school understanding of history, culture, religion, etc. you may have a bit of a point, but I think you're still overstating considerably.

Obviously, no one needs to know Latin to speak Spanish, French, Italian etc. But to write them well, I think some knowledge of Latin may be useful. I don't think anyone who studies the humanities or history or even the social sciences at the college level can really understand much of anything without some knowledge of Greek and Roman civilization, which doesn't mean knowing the languages. I was only overstating because there seems to me a woeful lack of historical awareness in the US.

Quoting Francoamerican: Obviously, no one needs to know Latin to speak Spanish, French, Italian etc. But to write them well, I think some knowledge of Latin may be useful. I don't think anyone who studies the humanities or history or even the social sciences at the college level can really understand much of anything without some knowledge of Greek and Roman civilization, which doesn't mean knowing the languages.

I was only overstating because there seems to me a woeful lack of historical awareness in the US.

My Latin teacher always said that Greek was a far more beautiful language, that there was far more interesting stuff to read in Greek, and that he'd rather teach it than Latin. Oh well!

Quoting claymisher: My Latin teacher always said that Greek was a far more beautiful language, that there was far more interesting stuff to read in Greek, and that he'd rather teach it than Latin. Oh well!

How I would love to be able to say, right now, in Latin or Greek, "the grass is always greener ..."

Quoting Francoamerican: I don't think anyone who studies the humanities or history or even the social sciences at the college level can really understand much of anything without some knowledge of Greek and Roman civilization, which doesn't mean knowing the languages.

I was only overstating because there seems to me a woeful lack of historical awareness in the US.

Nope, you can't take the kids down the street to take a look at a Roman bath or Temple to Jupiter in America. Surprise, surprise, surprise.

Quoting claymisher: My Latin teacher always said that Greek was a far more beautiful language, that there was far more interesting stuff to read in Greek, and that he'd rather teach it than Latin. Oh well!

True. I studied ancient Greek in college for three years and was absolutely enchanted by Homer and Plato. Even when you have to look up one out of every four words, the experience is worth it. Although both Latin and Greek are Indo-European languages, the grammar and vocabulary of ancient Greek are quite "dépaysant" ---estranging?---to speakers of languages that are massively indebted to Latin, like English and French.