I have to agree with you. The "bureaucracy" argument against universal healthcare is a wash. You'll get it in government, you'll get it in business. Considering that both evolve into hierarchal systems, it's an inevitable evil.

So I laugh off those arguments.

It's also true that ANY healthcare system can be made to work. I was treated for an emergency in socialist Finland and had no problem finding competent doctors and receiving excellent care on a business trip-- at a fraction of what it would have cost me here. That's actually support for your argument, geneven-- bureaucracies add cost, so the current US system sure looks less efficient than it could be.

I've received excellent care in the US... but then, I've been treated extremely poorly as well. I've found that maverick doctors are the best for me. These are the lone holdouts against the coziness between medicine and Big Pharma. My two main doctors (DO GP and urologist) both despise the status quo because it comes between them and their work. I love those guys for that.

The absolute best care I've received was, interestingly, in a Catholic-run hospital-- back before they all sold-out to for-profit enterprise. It's anecdotal, sure, but that impacts my opinion on the subject. I think a return to the nonprofit approach would be better than either of the 2 diverse proposals often discussed these days. But, as usual, it looks like common sense and patient interest never make it to the table...

Back to the topic.

2 news items today:

1. McCain suspends his campaign to ostensibly focus on the financial meltdown that Bush wants solved really quickly.

My analysis: pure grandstanding on McCain's part. How idiotic. His campaign pumps money back into a faltering economy. Suspending it sends the wrong signal. And Bush's eagerness to wrap the matter up before the warts are exposed is just more of the covert crap for which his administration is infamous. Vet the debacle thoroughly, and put safeguards in place TO KEEP IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

2. Obama/Biden were found to have supported the idiotic "bridge to nowhere" that is also tripping up Sarah Palin.

My analysis: pure hypocrisy on their part, just like Obama's flimsy reasoning for voting for a war he doesn't agree with.

I'm tired of candidates' words not matching their actions. I'm tired of the top 2 parties getting elected despite (or because of) spin and malfeasance. I'm tired of dinosaurs like Ted Kennedy who won't step aside for new blood.

Vote for an alternative. Those guys are trying harder and have more integrity. Your vote is only really wasted if you keep supporting the same tired old insanity instead of using it for real change.

I don't think we've seen a response to the charge that Obama/Biden supported the bridge to nowhere, so we don't know how accurate it is. Supporting the bridge was part of Palin's campaign, not just part of some vote. Recently the 'road to nowhere' that went to the bridge to nowhere was completed for tens of millions; local residents say they might use it for jogging or something.

It would be wrong, I suspect, to assume that members of Congress are always aware of everything they are voting for. It's not a matter of hypocracy but of complexity. People sneak in pet projects all the time.

Voting rolls are public. It's accurate.

I have some choice words for anyone not at least marginally aware of the major components of a bill. This one was subject to much public debate, which is the one thing that killed it.

Obama and Biden knew. Just like Obama knew every time he cast a yes vote supporting the insane debacle in Iraq.

Sorry, they don't get a break on this one. Wrong is wrong.

Despite your best effort, TR, the server is still up. I just read this thread and was surprised at

a) how civilized the discourse remained despite the obvious differences of opinion, and

b) despite being eager for an end to the desolation and despair that the 'neo-cons' have brought to the world, the consensus appears to be an absence of trust in the voting system, especially (two) parties.

As for a), I can say that I should not have doubted the ability of the members of this forum to discuss a volatile subject, especially given the rather rough evidence that those of us who care to vote in this little poll already heavily favor one party. In general however, notwithstanding a few (potentially legitimate:-) posts flaming TR, members of this forum generally adhere to good decorum on a daily basis.

As for b), I concur with the yellow-dog democrat in the group. Two parties ain't the best, but I ain't seen nothing better yet...right on dude.

Finally, I think everyone should vote. Red state or blue. Rain or shine. Even if you think it won't matter. If it doesn't matter, what's the harm? Vote anyway. It's both a privilege and a duty, and we don't get many of either anymore.

So the government can run something as complex as the military, but it can't be trusted with running an insurance program? ( btw, Medicare is already a whopping success when compared to most private insurance in terms of percentage of dollars spent on care ).

So we can socialize banking, but not health care?

I too wait far longer to see my doctor than I have ever waited for a DMV agent.

I live in Upstate NY and I oppose *any* bailout even though it will affect me personally.