I'd like to see Medicare available to everyone who does not have employer-sponsored insurance. I would like to see COBRA benefits extended for as long as you can pay them, or until you have another insurance option. I'd like to see government sponsored urgent care clinics and I liked Ellen's idea a few weeks back of government sponsored health-care loans.

But mostly I'd like to see a debate about the entire big picture and the ramifications of a single-payer plan, rather than hand wringing.

And to answer your question, of course my position is dictated by my experiences. But I also made sure I had insurance before I started having kids. I took a job I hated last year to make sure I had insurance, and that bought me another 18 months of COBRA. And I've found a way to keep up with the payments. It's not easy, but it's the first check I write every month. I've got another insurer lined up when COBRA runs out. I don't love my plan, but the consequence of not having it is much worse.

I'm going to address 1 and 2 together, because my response will be the same, and it has to come in a question -- why do you think costs are going to go down with single payer. Even the CBO says that's not the case. The only thing that can reduce the overall cost is to reduce services -- you may find some savings in waste or duplication, but not enough to matter significantly. You want to take profit out -- but you aren't saying profit for healthcare is 6 percent of the GNP, are you? So where does the rest of the savings come from? Doctors still get paid. Nurses still get paid. Orderlies, technicians, clerks still get paid. Equipment still has to be bought. Electricity still has to be used. If, as a nation, we are going to lock those prices, we're going to have to lock those salaries as well. And the prices for equipment, medicine, whatever. If we don't lock them, we're still going to see escalation.

You are right that by raising taxes for this program in exchange for lowering insurance payments makes sense. But it won't be seen that way. Taxes will get cut again, and then what?

I like your floating down the river analogy, but that's mostly because it's been a long time since I've taken a float trip. using it, what do you suggest -- that someone put signs up warning of the falls? How about a big net to prevent anyone from going past it? How big a net? There will always be those who choose to fish beyond the safety area, insured or not.

This is what I think. If you offered comprehensive insurance for $200 a month, there would still be 15 million or so who wouldn't want to pay it. Some still wouldn't be able to afford it; some just want to go past the net.

There are some that are disingenuous, but my guess is most are not. They are people are are scared of losing that they have. They are scared of the coverage they have, slight or not, expensive or not, will be taken away and given to someone else. That's the fear, and it's a strong one. Remember, most of the older generation that is protesting was taught communism, or socialism, was evil. Not wrong, but evil. They lived in fear of that very system one day deciding to either blow them off the face of the earth or invading to enforce it. So those fears, while unsubstatiated, are embedded deep. So anything that resembles what their mortal enemy proselytizes was antithetical to everything America was about. (in my school, it was called Americanism versus Communism, and was required by law). So expecting them to embrace any plan that begins to reek -- or that can be successfully labeled communistic -- is unrealistic.

I agree that we can't sacrifice 47 million people. but what sacrifices are we willing to pay to help them? I'm a Realtor. I pay $1165 a month for my health insurance. But a lot of Realtors -- some who are making good money -- decide to go without. They can, in all likelihood, afford; they choose not to spend. Are we going to make them?

The poverty rate in Canada is about 40 percent lower than the US. So taxable income in Canada is more available than in the US. And the average tax rate in Canada is 6% higher,and there is a national 5% goods and services tax. There is more money available to the government for these programs, and the burden is not just placed on the wealthiest, but on all taxpayers, and because of the sales tax, on all citizens. Everyone pays for the system -- something that has not be proposed here.

While the NPR report may have claimed no rationing, as the father of premature twins, the shortage of neonatal beds certainly sounds troubling. As does the exodus -- mass or not -- of doctors. Med school is long and expensive -- doctors aren't out of line to expect some sort of payoff for it. If that payoff is reduced, the number of people choosing to go through the process might reduce as well, which would lead to fewer providers of service. Which would, invariably, lead to a greater denial of services.

Canada may have made the right decision 50 years ago going to a single payer system, but throwing it out as an example to the US is disingenuous. Converting the US system to a single payer is a process that must take decades, not months, and needs to the subject of a sincere debate. Part of that requires accepting the faults and limitations of that system, as well as the current one.

If the idea has merit, then it will have merit. No one on either side at these meetings is coming to be informed -- they are coming to make their voices heard. Trust the representatives are working to the best of their ability to be in the public interest. If you don't think they are, run against them. Make your case. See if enough people agree with you to elect you in their stead.

I come from to this from a different perspective, because I don't believe there is a groundswell of support for any reform. I believe people want their insurance to be cheaper, and they want it to cover more. They also want their cable to cheaper to to offer more channels. There might be 50 million people in the country who think this is a big deal -- that's a lot, but it's roughly 12 percent of the population. Whatever reforms that comes through will affect the other 88 percent, too.

And don't underestimate their concerns. Many are valid. While many downplay it, rationing is a legitimate concern (I say this because my wife has requires a luprin shot every month to control endometriosis pain. It cost $500. It saves her about three days of pain a month. Is that worth it? What about infertility coverage? What about anti-depressants? Or sleeping pills? or psychotherapy? Bariatric surgery? Hip replacements on 85+ year olds? SRS surgery? Breast augmentation surgery? How about after a mastectomy? With single payer or even a public option, we are all paying for those things. Should we?

The CBO has already said there won't be a cost savings. So how does it get paid for? Raising taxes on the rich? Fine, until the line moves, and the line always moves. So when theses people are protesting, you may doubt their motives, but blowing off their concerns is no more meritorious than them blowing off yours.

So you asked what we do? We let democracy play out. I don't think this issue is a no-brainer on either side. It deserves loud, boisterous and vehement debate. So lets have it.

The new league launches with lots of fanfare, picks up a TV contract and some decent names and support. Attendance is okay, but tapers. Before long, though, the teams are scrimping, some are folding. The league contracts and then disappears, leaving those few passionate supporters wondering why.

The reason is simple. At the end of the day, people tend to stick with what they know. The owners of the game do everything they have to do to win. And the public likes football in the fall. They may think, and even say, they want something else, but they stick with what they already have, already know.

That's what will happen here. Which is too bad, because I absolutely loved the USFL.

Most everything that you would expect,or hope, or fear, would be said here has been said, so I've only go this to add. I've fought this war my whole life. Sine second grade I've been considered fat. It has been, I regret to say, the defining aspect of my life. it has cost me jobs; it has cost me respect; it has cost me perspective.

Short of surgery, there is nothing I haven't tried. And still it's there. Leaves for a while, but comes back in force. No matter what changes I make -- eating, exercise, mantras, it always comes back.

After my last go round, where I lost 120 pounds, -- again -- and as soon as I started eating regularly, following dietitian's advice, it started to come back on. I've put 45 of it back and have maintained that for three years now. I'm not as bad as I was, but a long way from where anyone would say I ought to be. I run/walk 5 miles three times a week. I swim a mile two other times. I don't eat very much (don't have time with the kids anymore). and still, 80 pounds overweight.

So this is what I've learned. Your body knows where it wants to be. For some people that's thin, and for others it's not. So you're not fighting fat, or food, you're fighting your body's desired size.

That's not to say it's not a fight you should have. That's up to you. But you should understand that the only way I've found to successfully battle a weight problem -- a serious one, not a few unwelcome pounds -- is to become obsessed with it. It has to be the most important thing in your world. Everything you do has to start with the question "How is this going to affect my weight battle?" You can't be casual with it, because as soon as yous tart being causal with it, well, you find yourself in Iraq.

Good luck with it. It's no fun.

Thanks again. Anybody want some cake?

The scary part of it to me is that had McCain won the election, he would have likely done the exact same things on torture and detention. But in that case, he would have had significant opposition to it from the Dems. When Obama does it, it is largely unopposed -- the right likes the policy, and the left doesn't want to attack their guy. So it gets left up to the fringe (imagine, people who think that it's not okay to preemptively detain or detain after acquittal are thought of as fringe!) to criticize, and those complaints are largely brushed off. Even here.

It goes back to a very simple question to me -- if Obama, a constitutional scholar, can so completely disregard pretty simple Constitutional concepts, what concepts can we expect him to maintain? He was very clear about this during the campaign and this is a clear backtrack of that -- so if he's willing to change his position on this, what else will he change on?

That's the big question to me.

And I agree with your statement that most people ridiculing her for it -- including Gitlin and, I might add, the reporter on the story herself -- did not know that fact. The response hasn't been outrage at her misunderstanding about the DOJ's role, it's been mocking her for thinking there was a Department of Law. Trying to backtrack from it now is just intellectually dishonest.

So the only thing politicians can do is force tax increases on people who don't want them. If the people of South Carolina -- or my home states of Colorado and Florida, too -- would grow the F up and understand that things cost money, then the pols would follow suit.

I watched 1776 this afternoon. Really bad singing -- not a good movie (or play, I'm told) but I was overwhelmed as always at the thought of how much they were willing to sacrifice 233 years ago, signing a paper that meant death to them and their families if they lost their cause. Were the values more important then, or did they just have less to lose? High-minded words are always just high-minded words, but they still ring, don't they?

I am not one who canonizes the founding fathers -- in fact, I think we pay too much credence to what they thought or meant 233 years ago. The universe was different then, and extrapolating those words to our time is quite the limiting exercise. Our time is now, and those words that affect our lives are words that ought to be spoken now. But they aren't. We cling to theirs, unwilling to make our own pronouncement, unwilling to find those values to which we are willing to pledge our property, our lives and our sacred honor. Instead we mock, and delight in the failures of our opponents and pat ourselves on the back when our guy or gal wins, cheering the uniform as much as the idea behind it. Me included.

So as I'm looking to a darkening Colorado sky, with the strong chance of unseasonal rain shutting down our display tonight, I'm going to pledge to myself these truths that ought to be self evident, that all men and women are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certainly unalienable rights. What those are, I guess, we all should decide for ourselves.

And as I do, I'm going to remain grateful for many many things, not the least of them is a friend 1700 miles away, with a glass of pale wine in her hand, smiling at the man-made stars as they light up the ocean.

Happy Fourth, Melissa.

She got exposed to big bucks during the campaign. She can make it on speaking tours, book deals, maybe even a show on Fox. Ann Coulter, with a lot less credibility, has made millions as the far right voice. Palin thinks she can tap into that -- she's right, she can -- and make the kind of money she saw people have on the campaign.

I think it's a simple as that.

Been along time since I've heard anyone mention the domino effect with any credibility.

Might be an interesting few days.

I guess this is the point that I disagree with. Obama may have given pragmatic policy statements, but he surrounded himself and his campaign with a much higher moral purpose. The pragmatic chadidate int he primaries was Clinton. We pretty much knew what we were getting with her.

But Obama ran with an optimistic idea that things didn't have to be the same, that they could be different than the last two or three decades suggested. After all, you don't have a slogan, and crowds chanting, "Yes We Can!" if you're talking about making slight alterations to existing policies. You don't run a campaign of "Change We Can Believe In" if the changes you are proposing are minute. You don't talk on and on about the necessity of transparency and then actively work to remain, at best, opaque.

So when you talk about character, you're saying that you're giving him credit for character as am improvement on Bush, even though his actions have been contradictory to the meme of his campaign.

Do you believe that Obama's actions and stated stance on this issue is keeping with the spirit of his campaign? Is this what we voted for? Do you people voted to expand Executive power because they trusted Obama more than Bush? Do you think people voted for a President who wasn't going to allow them to see the White House appointment schedule? Whose DOJ was going to petition to disallow defendant's right to see prosecution DNA evidence? Who was going to argue for more secrecy? Do you think that was who people thought they were electing?

I don't. Obama may not have specifically broken any promises here, but he certainly has violated the spirit of his campaign, and that is what is so frustrating. He ran on a platform of change and transparncey; in office he is continuing or expanding the same policies of secrecy.

And if he's willing to change on those things -- those things that I felt were at the core of his campaign -- why are you so willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on those other issues you consider important?

You mentioned health care reform, and climate change as policies that might be getting lost in this debate. But those were never central to his campaign. Barak Obama's campaign was about changing the culture of Washington, about undoing the previous eight years. It was about little else. And that hope was enough. But as reality starts, more and more, to show that nothing about the culture of Washington or the Executive Branch is changing but the President, it becomes harder and harder to feel good about who I voted for.

Just out of curiosity, like what? What good has he done in five months? What's better than it was?

Centuries of overcultivation and clear cutting have left the land devoid of trees and farmland. There are no resources there to to developed. That's why the storms hit is so hard -- there's a real lack of vegetaion for control flooding, so all the topsoil runs off, and there's no buffer for the rain of the wind.

The government only functions under corruption. I don't think there has been a single administration since the revolution that has operated under any idea but their own self interest. And unlike a lot of the Caribbean, the country has a history of violent revolution, so industry is wary of laying down roots there. The only reason the DR hasn't taken it over is because they don't want it.

It's a place where much, if not most, of the citizens believe in zombies.

The only way to save the country is to let the trees and plants grow back. Until there is some level of agriculture to allow for some degree of subsistence, I doubt anyone can help. Even Bubba.

Political marriages at that level are always complicated. I think the Clintons showed that better than anyone. Sanford's wife -- justifiably -- has shown a level of callousness (which isn't the right word, but I can't think of a better one)that leads me to believe that this wasn't a lovefest, but I could be wrong. More likely it was a partnership to mutual benefit, and he broke the rules of it. But that's what love does, doesn't it? makes you break the rules?

Interesting tangent.

Oh yeah.

I understand your frustration about the ads and the blog posts. But monitoring it takes people and those people have to be paid. Whether management that decides removing ad-related blog posts is up a priority above everything else is up to them. Getting indignant about a free service seems, well, ungrateful for the fact that it exists in the first place.