Please keep in mind that when I said "broad term", I mean that a lot of things can be classified as either socialist or capitalist. For instance, Medicare and The Patriot Act are both technically Socialist programs. I am also aware America is not Capitalist.

With that being said, Socialism, when it comes down to certain policies, can be taken advantage of by someone who is power hungry, and certain laws, when manipulated by such a power hungry person, can make it much easier for someone to impose Fascism.

Also keep in mind, there are different levels of liquidity, cash being the most liquid. Seems like we both were trying to make a similar point: we don't have money of our own.

Your last paragraph about value "x" was also in part what I was trying to get at with Nixon's policies, though we just worded it differently. If supply rises while demand remains the same, it results in the value greatly depreciating, and is the same with money.

Overall, I think you and I are on the same page.

It's unfortunate that economics is otherwise known as "the dismal science", but it is true no less. It's not necessarily because it's boring, but rather, much of what has to happen to keep an economy in tact (or to bring it out of an economic crisis) turns out to be unfair to quite a few people. You never hear it called the dismal science on any news station, nor do you particularly hear anything about any actual economic substance. All you hear is divisiveness because, in the end, all politics does is serve to be divisive. What else does politics do for us? It gets people fired up, fallacies and rumors are created, everyone winds up lying and manipulating something to their own advantage, and in the end, there's no one you can really trust, ESPECIALLY not the average American voter.

For instance, the amount of people who cannot accurately define Capitalism and Socialism is absolutely astounding. Not only have politicians managed to fool those who don't know any better, some otherwise intelligent people cannot give an accurate definition of either, nor do they understand almost every successful economy in the world has elements of both, EVEN OURS. I almost wish I could do a film documentary, going around asking people what they think Capitalism and Socialism mean. But since I don't have money for a camera, you'll have to read this instead.

Socialism and Capitalism (the technical term being Free Enterprise) are both very broad terms to describe an economic theory (I emphasize the word theory because many economic beliefs turn out to be fallacy, or are utilized at the wrong time; how often do you hear politicians say "seemed like a good idea at the time"?). Socialism, in short, favors state ownership over private ownership as a means of production and distribution (which includes trade), Capitalism favors privatization. So when you hear the terms "big government" and "socialism" in the same sentence, in a way, it's true, but what they simply refuse to understand that without elements of American Socialism, they might as well have decided to leave the 35W bridge sitting in the river, the police and fire department shouldn't get funding from the government, road work should never be done on a road full of potholes, and all libraries should be shut down ('cause damn, those evil libraries, they're the biggest threat to America, bigger than al Qaeda!). As one journalist put it, "Socialism is apparently what is created when a president you do not like spends money on things of which you do not approve".

Yes, if a country constantly pushes more and more toward Socialism, it can move more toward fascism, and can segway into a dictatorship; for as greedy as the banking and oil industries are, politicians are power hungry. But even the most Socialistic countries, like China, have elements of capitalism as well. Ever seen that label "Made in China"? It's because China opened their trade boarders after being completely closed off for decades, and now they're one of the most rapidly growing countries in the world. Not to mention that when you hear about the U.S. being in debt, it's because we sell most of our T-Bonds to China, so we continue to spend money we technically don't have. That expansion of trade was an element of Capitalism. It's called a Mixed Economy, and today, nearly every economy around the world is Mixed. When China finally decided nationalize, their economy went through a much needed expansionary phase (we'll talk expansionary and contractionary phases in just a moment).

One of the biggest government takeover fear tactics that have been thrown around have been involving health care reform and the Public Option, which, yes, would technically be a form of socialism. I have some fears of the Public Option being a failure if introduced too soon because of the debt our predecessors have laid before us. No question that I think it's essential, but if we pump too much money into it too soon, what exactly will happen? I honestly don't have an answer. Should we jump on it right away? Or should we impose ultra-tight regulations of health insurance companies and hospitals so wasteful spending is cut down, and then segway into the Public Option? It would be awful for the 10% uninsured as I am part of that 10%, but can it be done with the debt we have? I'm not saying we can't, I'm seriously asking if it's possible. As it is, we're spending money we don't have, so if we spend more money we don't have, how will that work? Better yet, how does America even get money? What exactly does America produce these days that people around the world want to trade for? What are things that we produce here in America that no one gets anywhere else? (please no corny answers like pride and dedication, I would like substance please). If you have an answer for any of the questions I proposed, leave a comment below.

Now there are many who are outraged by our taxpayers money going toward "wasteful spending" and that somehow, the spending will lead to a dictatorship where wire tapping and the Patriot Act somehow didn't (which proves that both parties favor Socialism, just in different forms. Like I said, Socialism is a very broad term). They preach Reaganomics, shrinking government to the point where you could drown it in a bath tub, and no taxes. What they don't understand is A. In 1982, Reagan imposed the largest peacetime tax increase in history; B. Where do you think funding for recovery from national disasters comes from? Sure as hell ain't privately funded! And C. Elements of Reaganomics did not work because his ideas were based off of unfettered capitalism, which can only function if those in charge of the free market economy are fundamentally and ethically sound (which I think the banking and oil industries have both proven that greed takes over everything when there is no regulation). What worked about Reagan's policies was that he imposed a much needed contractionary phase for the economy.

Quick history lesson: in the 1970's, there was a lethal economic phenomenon occurring in the U.S. and the U.K. known as Stagflation, a combination of unemployment and inflation. This was a time when Keynesian economics set the standard, the clearest example being Nixon's "War on Prices." Nixon wanted to lower prices without waiting for the economy to sort itself out. So he thought that you could throw money at producers so that government spending could make up for companies lowering their prices (keep in mind, they're lowering prices not as a result of supply or demand, just lowering for the sake of lowering, sounds nice right?).

But what happens when you force prices to change like that (either forcing them to be higher or lower), because of price ceilings and price floors, you create massive surpluses or shortages that producers cannot keep up with. A forced price change does not all of the sudden make people buy things if unemployment rates are still soaring; it was fallacious logic and a failure in American Socialism because all factors weren't taken into account. So essentially, every president during the 70's was trying to spend their way out of an economic downturn caused by inflation, which is directly caused by too much spending. So it was like trying to bleed on someone else's wound and hoping your blood clots faster so they won't need stitches. When Reagan took office, he tightened the money supply, which caused a recession (a necessary one at that in order to get back on track, it's just that no politician wanted to put their chance of getting reelected on the line by putting us through a recession), which ended the inflation, which allowed companies to hire more people as it didn't cost as much to produce and sell goods, and gradually, unemployment numbers reduced as a result. This massive spending reduction and tightening of the money supply was what as known as a Contractionary phase of the economy.

What is happening nowadays I don't believe has a specific term, but it is a combination of Deflation and unemployment as opposed to Inflation and unemployment. So when you hear Republicans talk about what worked when Reagan was president, that's the key thing you gotta look at: When Reagan was President. These are two completely different economic crises, and one cannot use the same techniques as were used in the early 80's. We need an expansionary phase right now, which Obama has done by signing the stimulus package into law (which has worked to some extent but probably needed more oversight).

The point of a stimulus is to have broad spending. Sure you have some categorization as to where you're putting what money, oversight is very important in that respect, but you give money to industries and corporations as a whole, which is like the trickle-down theory, only instead of trickling down it's a full dousing with a fire hose, for all industries and all companies. Tax cuts help to some extent, but if you're talking about fixing markets within the U.S., tax cuts don't put enough money back in the consumer's pocket on their own as all around tax cuts don't have as big of influence on the market as the consumer itself. If the market is no different, the consumers will spend no different, and if a business is in debt, or on the verge of going into debt, a tax cut won't put as much money back in their pocket as a bunch of consumers would. Which is why the government needs to act as the consumer and spend instead of us right now. In other words, there is less demand for products, and the government needs to get demand up by spending where consumers cannot.

Tax cuts have to be a part of it once the economy's demand gets rolling so that the consumers can continue to spend as opposed to the government spending themselves out of existence. However, the government needs to do the spending first, and they need to spend all-around. I know it almost sounds irresponsible to just toss money at every industry there is, and in most cases that's true, but right now, everyone is suffering. Everyone needs some help. The economy needed a stimulus that involved spending everywhere, but what we also need to go along with that is to give the appropriate tax breaks to our citizens so that they can continue what the government jump-started. Consumers spend everywhere; they don't think about spending money in a way that could help create jobs. They spend money on everything; things that are of personal benefit, and right now, nobody can spend on what benefits them the same way. The key is pumping money into everything, and allowing our citizens to continue that spending as opposed to the government continuously spending over and over again.

When government puts forth large amounts of money toward something, prices goes up, and if used too much, results in inflation (or even hyperinflation, Germany once experienced inflation upwards of 10,000%). However, the analogy I always use is this: If someone needs an injection of epinephrine (the fight or flight hormone; adrenaline essentially) because their blood pressure or pulse is significantly low, you give it to them. If you give them too much, they die. If you don't give them enough (or if you don't give them any at all), that will kill them as well. John McCain proposed a spending freeze, which would be the equivalent of not giving the patient any epinephrine, and would have continued this deflationary downward spiral. So what we need right now is to expand the economy, and yes, that does involve government spending.

It is hard to figure out what to do exactly considering we have so much debt. Are we basically screwed no matter what? If we stop spending, we go into massive poverty quickly. If we continue to spend, we go further into debt, and then other countries refuse to buy our T-Bonds, which completely cuts off any ability for us to spend anything, and then sends us into poverty. Are we on the verge of becoming a 3rd world nation no matter what path we take?

Anywho, I hope the point you got out of this (if you actually read it all) is that the terms Capitalism and Socialism are thrown around like confetti on New Years, and that the two terms are both very broad. It's much deeper than too much socialism = government takeover, and too much capitalism = anarchy (hell if you really want the best example of unfettered capitalism, look at the illegal drug market and see if that works really well).

I really don't think animals will work for some reason XD

Any real kinda help though is appreciated

Hell no, that would be kinda awkward.

I need help with a college class where we're studying the heart. Me and my group have been assigned to get 1-3 recordings of someone's heartbeat of a different age/gender, and I've been assigned to girls age 20-25. If there is any girl in that age group, all you need is a computer mic, your computer's sound recorder, and a heartbeat. If anyone can, that would be fantastic. Thanks!

See, here's the problem with this whole thread:

People consider a politician's personal life to be the be-all-end-all. The story with the woman who he failed to report to the police in a timely matter was a damn tragedy, she did not deserve such a cruel fate.

I do, however, prefer someone who can get something done in Washington regardless of their personal life. Hell if Ozzy Osbourne had good policies I'd vote for him, biting off the heads of bats or not.

This isn't to say I'd vote for a rapist or something outrageous as I know someone will try to twist my words to that extent. All I'm saying is what's most important to me is if they can actually get something done. Bill Clinton's affair being the best example in my opinion. I honestly am not 100% certain how Kennedy managed to hold onto his seat for as long as he did with the scandals and such, but he did whether you wanted him to or not.

This isn't a debate of substance anymore.

The public option would allow competition to still exist in the free market, and yet "IT'S SOCIALIZED!!!" so it's GOTTA be evil and we all MUST be heading toward becoming the next USSR.

Folks, it's just another scapegoat. It's all an excuse for those to make as they're being told what their little lobbyists are telling them to say. If they don't say what the little lobbyists tell them to do, they don't get to wear their fancy suit and go to Washington every day. It has nothing to do with any actual facts, it's all about whose hand is in whose pocket, why don't we realize that?

This is no longer a government for the people, by the people. This is a government for the guy with the most amount of money to throw at somebody so they can get reelected. Regardless of what kind of damage it does, economically, morally or otherwise, the politicians will continue to serve those who give them money, NOT the people.

THIS is the shame nobody is talking about. THIS is the complete systematic takeover of this nation, NOT "socialized health care." THIS is the policy that is being forced down all of our throats, and if health care doesn't mean anything to you, every other issue in Washington is controlled by the big money, and we're all too stupid to realize it.

Is this really the America we know and love?

How anyone still believes this nonsense is beyond me. Seriously? Obama wants to put through legislation that would determine who was worthy of living or not? God that sounds more like the current system we have in place, I mean insurance companies practically put people to death half the time as is if it's not the exact treatment the company desires

Good points. The truth is though we're not going after a Canadian system of health care. Other systems we can reference is the one in England, or France even. We're not seeking to mimic any of those systems though, we're looking for the most effective method of lowering the costs enough so all Americans can have access.

Every system has its flaws, and our system will undoubtedly have their own, but are the flaws of a universal system worse than the flaws in our system currently? I just don't see how it could be.

Being 19 years of age, I am a member of this youth movement. The realization amongst the majority my age (and well, quite frankly, the majority of Americans sorry to say) is that "well.. I honestly don't care as long as I can live my life."

Those who actually do care know something else has to be done, but none of them know where to begin getting their facts, and wind up with a lot of half-truths that, in the end, don't do much good, and so they become fired up about an issue that they really don't understand.

Then there are those like me, who are seeking to make a career out of informing people about fiscal responsibility, debunking the half-truths from Washington, and bringing about some form of reason starting from the middle. We want things to change, and we hope that by the time we're able to make a difference, it won't be too late.

All you people spewing nonsense against Sotomayor don't even know how to spell PUERTO RICAN.

Why should we even give any of you the time of day?

No question that entitlement reform is necessary as entitlement programs are not required to be talked about in budget hearings, and thus are never discussed. Reform is necessary, but to say that most of my list of socialized programs are failures, you're saying that the police department is a potential failure, the fire department is a potential failure, programs that provide senior citizens health care are complete failures, programs that give money to those who lost their job in this economy are a complete failure. Do you really want to try and make that argument?

And obviously, you've never had to deal with losing your health insurance and raking up thousands of dollars of debt as a result, or have never been turned away for a treatment you couldn't have. If you had, you wouldn't be saying health care is a useless, boring issue.

But I get the vibe that you're one of those "government should only be used for going to war" Republicans and also went/supported teabaggers/teabagging a few months back, so I'm only going to give you so much credence.

Good point. But getting that type of legislation passed would also mean congressmen voting for themselves to receive less money, so the president would have to push the law himself.

Couldn't agree more, it's become a government for the corporation, by the corporation. At the same time, can't that be eliminated by pushing legislation regardless of how many millions of dollars the industry pumps into congress in attempt to shut people up?

In other words, can't we make them irrelevant by pushing beyond them, or do the lobbyists for certain need to be taken out of the picture before anything can happen? Can we push beyond, or do we need to completely push them out to move forward? It's a legitimate question to ask.

Thanks for the additional list, gotta drive the point home about how insane the opposition is being.

Well if I were to do an article about how we execute health care reform I would include the positives; what works about the current health care system we have. This is simply a call to say we need health care reform, and we need to push through it regardless of what pea-brained argument against reform there might be.

Well I'm glad people liked it, I haven't gotten really much for negative feedback (one person tried to say I had "fallen off the deep end" for claiming the police department etc. was a form of socialism, so he didn't even challenge anything substantive), but otherwise.. Seems like I did something sort of right anyway.

Thanks for all the compliments, I'm actually trying to work on a Journalism and Political Science double-major as time progresses.

Care to give any sort of logic or are you just going to sit there making grubmly emoticons and typing a lot of dots?

I have searched for the right words to find for the health care industry, and every time I attempt to articulate my thoughts on the matter, finding the right words becomes difficult due to my lack of expertise. I will now try to articulate those thoughts based on what I know, and hope that it doesn't sound like Liberal jibberish.



Talk, or paranoia rather, about health care reform has managed to ensue the nation, causing a massive uproar that stems further outside the neoconservative base. Let's take a look at the arguments here:

The conservative base in general has always had a fear of "socialized health care; it is not exclusive to the neoconservative base. This paranoia has stemmed back to the early 60's even, when the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine released videos and records attempting to instill fear amongst average Americans, and succeeded. The Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine sold records of a familiar celebrity voice by the name of Ronald Reagan, who, at the time, was still a private citizen. On this record, Mr. Reagan preaches that doctors begin to lose their freedom, would not be able to work in their town because there would be regulations that only allow a certain amount of doctors in each city. The government would also regulate who could see which doctor, and determine who lives or dies. From this program, other programs would follow that would invade the freedoms of every American in the nation, "..until one day, we will awake to find, we have SOCIALISM."

Ok don't get me started on socialism as I've already had way too many conversations about that, but since it's already been brought up, allow me to make a preemptive list of all the different socialist programs within the United States that many of us are using, or have used:
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- Social Security
- Unemployment
- Bridges built
- Libraries
- Public Roads
- Public Schools
- The U.S. Postal Service
- The Police Department
- The Fire Department
- The Holocaust Memorial

You get the idea. Republicans may say they hate socialism, but they would never speak out against having a police department. See both the ignorance AND the hypocrisy?

In the early 1990's, when Bill Clinton took office, he gave the job of reforming the health care system to a very familiar figure today: The now Former First Lady and current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Her goal was to achieve universal health care; health insurance for all Americans without the denial as a result of a preexisting condition, or "experimental procedures" etc etc etc. The counter-argument was made by figures who were significant then, and in some cases, are still significant today (Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, etc). They, once again, created fear about "socialized medicine" and about how we would have no control over our coverage, what doctor we saw, what kind of treatments we would receive, you get the idea. The argument was the same then as it was in the early 1960's, only the media became much more evolved, and had a similar layout that we see today in 2009. So the word was able to be spread very quickly, and more activism spawned from that, one protester even burning Hillary Clinton in effigy.

The health care industry (The AMA, Health Insurance Association of America, etc), at that point, paid congress over $100,000,000 (one-hundred million dollars) to silence Clinton's health care crusade, and succeeded in blocking health care reform. It wasn't the politicians, it was those whom the politicians sold their votes to. Hillary Clinton's silence herself was then bought by the health care industry as she became the 2nd highest earner of money from health care lobbyists in the entire senate. All orchestrated by the ones who want to maintain the status quo. If you don't believe me, take a look:

Within an insurance company is someone known as a medical reviewer. A medical reviewer is someone, often times another doctor, who determines whether or not an insurance company will pay for a certain method of treatment. The Medical Reviewers, along with the Board of Trustees, determine whether or not someone can be treated or not. If not, they instruct the doctors to not allow the treatment to take place. The standard by which someone is allowed or denied coverage for their treatment is determined by the Medical Director. As one former Medical Reviewer for Humana said, "The very definition of a good medical director is someone who can save the company a lot of money."

This Former Medical Reviewer goes on to talk about the mandatory denial rate, which at the time she worked, was 10%. That means that 1 out of every 10 people at a minimum would have to be denied coverage in order for them to retain their job. That number is then compared to what the denial rate of that reviewer was, and the ones with even more denials are given bonuses. So they're given incentive to screw people over: If I can save my company money, even if it's at the cost of someone's life, I'll get some of that money saved for my own personal use.

Sounds pretty soulless doesn't it?

Well, one medical reviewer actually had a soul, and chose to testify in open court: Dr. Linda Peeno, another former worker for Humana who now has a career in Medical Ethics. Here's part of the testimony she gave back in February of 2002:

“As a physician working for Humana, I denied a young man a heart transplant that would have saved his life, and thus caused his death. No person or group has held me accountable for this, because, in fact, what I did was I saved a company a half a million dollars.

“Humana’s only concern was costs. The young man fit all the criteria, a donor had been found, his doctor was ready to do the operation. Meanwhile, behind the scenes Humana employees scrambled to find a loophole in the patient’s contract. When they did, I was the one who had to tell the surgeon that the operation would not be covered.

“The doctor asked me if I knew that the patient would likely die of his condition without the surgery, and I said I knew. When I hung up the phone my colleagues at Humana were thrilled, even joyful. I was sickened....When HMO’s came on the scene, we were told that they would eliminate only the 'inappropriate care' and they would reduce costs so everyone could have insurance. Exactly the opposite has happened. They deny and delay needed care with sophisticated techniques, consume enormous resources for overhead costs and profits, and health care costs are rising dramatically.”


Another former worker for an insurance company named Lee Einer, someone who was hired to look for reasons, even one slip-up on an application otherwise invisible to the naked eye, to get an insurance company's money back if they've been forced to pay for a procedure, had a few words to say:

"We're going to go after this like it's a murder case, and I mean a whole unit that is devoted to going through your health history for the last 5 years." He goes on to say that you might not even know you have had a preexisting condition, but an insurance company would ping you for one for having a symptom that might indicate a condition that an otherwise prudent person would seek treatment for known as a "Prudent Person Preexisting Condition." Thankfully that's not legal in every state, but there are still states where it's permitted.

"It's their friggin money!" he adds, "It's not unintentional. It's not a mistake. It's not an oversight issue. You're not slipping through the cracks, somebody made that crack and swept you toward it, and the intent is to maximize profits."
"...Did I do harm in other people's lives? Yeah... Hell yeah."

One insurance group, Keiser Permanente, wouldn't even allow treatment for someone's daughter, even though they were taken to the hospital and had a fever of above 104 degrees. Why? The mother didn't take their doctor to a Keiser Permanente hospital, and thus the Board of Trustees would not allow treatment. The woman was forced out of the hospital as she was being viewed as a volatile threat, and she then took her daughter to a Keiser Permanente hospital, just in time for her to have a seizure, slip into cardiac arrest, and die. The reason? It would have cost Keiser Permanente too much money to treat her at a different hospital.

One woman even had her health care coverage dropped after she had a procedure for cancer, and then they discovered that several years ago, she had a yeast infection. It wasn't that the procedure itself was illegal or unjust, it was just that the procedure cost a lot of money, and so the insurance company scrambled to find a reason they could get the money back. So, a simple yeast infection was enough of a preexisting condition to not only drop her coverage, but to force the doctors to come after her for the money from her procedure. The goal? To maximize profits.

These are all people who already had insurance. The stories of tragedy are endless, and in some form or another, touch us all. The United States has the lowest infant mortality rate in the entire Western World, your baby would have a better chance of surviving in El Salvador than here. As of 2007 we were the 37th ranked nation in the world when it came to health care, the #1 on the list being those "European Socialist Nations", France. Yes, those who we tried to demonize and change the name of French Fries for, they outdo us in Health Care 36x over, quite literally too.

One might argue that those nations with socialized medicine have absurdly long waiting periods to get in for an examination, doctors don't get paid as much, and often flock to America so they can have better coverage.

All Myths.

Many Canadians refuse to even come to America without some kind of guarantee that their insurance would be covered if they were injured. The moment they cross the boarder, they have no insurance. If they break a bone and need to go to the hospital, they're instantly several thousands of dollars in debt unless they can stand they pain until they drive back to Canada. Even in the busiest hospital, there have been several testimonies that the longest anyone has to wait to get treatment would be 20-40 minutes. The supposed fact that the better, more immediate treatment is here in America couldn't be more false.


Now, let's get back to modern days, what is the argument against health care reform now? They're creating fear about "socialized medicine" and about how we would have no control over our coverage, what doctor we saw, what kind of treatments we would receive, and in the end, senior citizens would be, essentially, put to death because the government could control how they die.

...Folks, it's just the same old song and dance. The same routine that Reagan and the AMA pushed in the 1960's, they're still pushing now, and it's working. Obama's approval rating on health care? 39%. Town Hall meetings on the matter? They're exploding across the nation, some even in acts of violence. One congressman has already been assaulted, and two earlier today nearly broke out in a riot. As one senior citizen tried to say, "Why should we have to change our way of life for only 20% of our country??" *whole room applauds.*

What they don't take into account is not only was that senior citizen most likely under a socialized health care program, but the 80% that do have insurance are on the verge of losing their coverage due to a lack of job security nowadays, or are at risk of having their treatment denied as companies become even greedier during an economic crisis. So, let's put that number of people with secure health insurance closer to about 50-60%. That puts half of our country either uninsured, on the verge of losing their coverage, or likely to not have a treatment covered. And yet even the thought of reforming health care, accompanied by that scary word "socialism", has created so much fear, anger, and outrage amongst citizens based off of what their congressmen say that people essentially want to kill over it.

The congressmen who they're getting their "opinions" from are those who have sold their votes to the health care industry. As a result, the people are becoming so fired up about an issue that they do not understand, but yet it reaches into the very depths of one's self-security: The thought of losing coverage and potentially dying. It's driving people to the point where we're on the verge of either revolution, or all-out civil war. It's truly unbelievable; something that should be as uniting of a cause as any, the right for every American to be treated, is on the verge of tearing us completely in half.

If you do not believe change is needed in the health care sector, I invite you to reread what I wrote in its entirety, and then explain your reasons why. I invite you to tell me why things shouldn't be changed, and why more of the horror stories you just read about should continue to happen simply for the sake of bolstering your own political status. As Senator Jim DeMint said, health care reform "will be Obama's Waterloo."

It's time for us as a nation to say enough to the greed. Enough to the lies. Enough to it all. It's time we stood up and fought for what is the truth as opposed to a load of fabricated crap that comes directly from the Legislative branch selling their souls, both Democrat and Republican alike. It's time we said enough is enough. We were all so outraged by the greed of the banking industry, and yet the greed within the health care industry is not only acceptable, but worth tearing our nation in half over? Worth dividing this great, one of a kind nation? We would go to war over something as simple as wanting all Americans to have coverage?


The time for greed and selfishness is over; the time for uniting for a common cause is now, and we are the only ones who can make it happen.