American Capitalism, the Free Market, an economy based on free enterprise and the "pursuit" of the American Dream, has been abandoned. The Democrats have finally got what they wanted - an economic downturn of their creation that they have been able to somehow, through a plethora of lies and deception, blame on the Republicans, and specifically, the Bush Administration. And there is a bonus for the Liberal Democrats in it too! George W. Bush, the globalist president in search of saving his legacy, has folded once again, and given in to the leftist's socialism, and their demands that he do something about the "crisis" in our economy.

Conservatism is Conservatism, no matter how many people claim to be conservatives, yet are not. Bush calls himself a conservative, as has McCain, but in many ways they are not.

Conservatism is a belief system that holds to moral values, realizing this is a flawed society run by a flawed human species, and we must consciously defend and support morals, no matter how cockeyed society becomes. Reality dictates that we are unable to progress to perfection. Utopia is a pipe dream. Our human flaws will never allow a Socialist Utopia to ever exist, regardless of how much the liberal leftists try to convince you otherwise.

Conservatism also believes that individuals should take responsibility for their lives and their government, partly because they are accountable to God, and partly because in the long run it is in the best interest of the people to do so. A strong centralized government is detrimental to individual rights. However, government will always be at odds with the people, because those in government have "power." Power is a drug. Eventually it becomes a never ending need for more and more, and when government is left unchecked by the people (the people have abdicated their responsibility - and the politicians have been running wild as a result), government becomes a controlling force over the individual, often using Socialist Utopian ideals to convince the people to submit willingly. When federal government becomes too controlling, freedom and liberty is lost, and the citizen becomes enslaved by a government that, using the deception of good intentions, promises to provide everything for the people, but instead oppresses them. Conservatism lives to combat big government, to protect the rights and responsibilities of the individual, and to maintain a balance between liberty and order. Conservatism believes in limiting the federal government, just as our founding fathers did when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

Liberalism teaches that humanity is progressing toward a perfect state, and as that journey takes place moral values must change to reflect an ever increasing tolerance of values that were once considered not to be moral. The state must take responsibility for the people, to guide them, to apply what is good and decent upon them, and use force to apply these new values if necessary. The state, after all, is accountable to the progress of humanity. Anyone who stands in the way of this progress towards a socialistic utopia is considered to be narrow-minded and weak, and will eventually be eliminated by the Utopian revolution against the moral foundations of the old society, either by force, or by eventual extinction.

George W. Bush, like his father, is unfortunately a globalist. "W" desires progression towards a "New World Order." To reach that goal, sometimes he practices "American Socialism." His pharmaceutical plan, No Child Left Behind, and Amnesty ideas all wreak of socialism and globalism. But none of them hold a candle to the "Bail-out." In fact, the financial bail-out is so socialist, even the Democrats love it! Fortunately, there are conservatives in The House willing to stand up to it, and call it what it is. Those Conservative Republicans, and a handful of Conservative Democrats, stopped the financial package today.

For one more day a major move towards American Socialism has been held at bay.

But what caused this "crisis" to come about in the first place?

I have stated many times that the Free Market System, Capitalism if you will, is a self-adjusting system. Without government manipulation, the economy will take care of itself, and no recessions, or depressions, would enter into the picture.

The Great Depression was partly a result of the creation of the Federal Reserve System, and the new Federal Bank's manipulation of the economy. In other words, government tampering in the economy.

If this is true, then what government tamperings brought on the current economic mess?

It is generally agreed that the primary cause of the economic difficulties we are currently experiencing is result of the bursting of the housing bubble. The housing market enjoyed unbelievable growth, spurned by the government manipulating the market, making the bubble an artificial one. A Capitalistic Economy is a constant roller coaster, with ups and downs occurring in the many different facets of the system. As prices go up, people buy less, forcing prices down, which results in an eventual increase in sales, which drives prices up, and so on. Supply and Demand, and the Movement of Products, is what the American Economic System is all about.

If the government artificially manipulates the system, the ups and downs become more exaggerated - and, like with gravity, what goes up must come down - and. . . the higher something goes up, the farther and harder it crashes back to Earth.

It was government manipulation that created the housing bubble. Government, not capitalism, caused this economic concern - and now the cockroaches in Washington want to use government to fix it.

Many economists claim The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to be a large part of the problem. The CRA is a federal law passed under President Jimmy Carter that requires banks, and similar institutions, to offer credit to the entire market, including those that under normal circumstances would not be approved for the types of loans encouraged by this act. This specifically means that these lending institutions were required to lower their lending standards so that everyone may have an opportunity to qualify for a home loan, or other loans. The ultimate purpose was to help people obtain "affordable housing." This is an age old liberal tendency. Everyone has a "right" to home ownership (just like everyone has a right to health care, a college education, etc.), so the government made sure it happened.

In 1995, President Bill Clinton's revisions eased restrictions even more with the goal of increasing the number of loans to small businesses and home borrowers that would not otherwise be approved for a home loan. The Government used pressure, and threatened the banks with fines, if they refused to provide bad loans to people with low, or nonexistent, credit ratings.

In 2003, the Bush Administration proposed that Congress set up an agency to monitor Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Bush proposed what the New York Times called the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. The Community Reinvestment Act concerned him, and Bush believed a weakening of the market may be on the horizon if the subprime mortgages continued.

John McCain co-sponsored with three other Republican Senators a similar effort in 2005. The changes were not acceptable to the Democrats in both cases, and both Bush's and McCain's efforts failed because of Democratic opposition.

The Democrats, with the CRA, and other programs, encouraged risky lending because of their "everyone has a right to affordable housing" chant. The Democrats wish to give, rather than encourage Americans to "earn". Now that their policies have fallen flat, however, the liberal left desires a bailout of the failed system, which will ultimately teach the lending institutions, and the morons that took out the loans they could not afford, that there are no consequences for their actions, regardless of how greedy or criminal said actions are.

In the face of this bail-out attempt, I stand against the moderate Republicans, the Bush Administration, and the liberal Democrats. I believe in conservatism, and a move towards government ownership of the banks, and bailing out failed companies and individuals, is hardly in tune with my conservative beliefs. Should the financial bail out succeed, it will be a major step towards America becoming a Socialist State.

I stand with the Conservative Republicans in The House, led by John Boehner, in their stance against the bailout.

I have been e-mailing my representatives my concerns, and my wishes. Have you?

Last Monday Night on Political Pistachio Radio a caller questioned my determination that the media is liberally biased. We agreed that television, especially the news networks, are liberal. Newspapers are notoriously known to lean to the left. In Southern California, from San Diego to Los Angeles, from the beach cities to the desert, the only non-liberal daily newspaper is the Orange County Register, and the Orange County Republicans are well known (along with a few niches in the Inland Empire) as being the final bastion of conservatism remaining in the Southern California region. Magazines definitely lean to the left. In fact, in my opinion, the only media outlet that does not lean far left is Talk Radio.

My caller on the radio show disagreed. He claimed that Hollywood is not liberal. I asked him, if that's the case, name one conservative movie (after which I added that for every one conservative movie he could name, I could name twenty liberal movies).

The liberal caller proclaimed Saving Private Ryan to be that conservative movie.

I was in such dismay that there was actually someone out there so misinformed that they actually thought that Hollywood is not in the tank for the far left liberal agenda that I did not respond specifically to the caller's choice of movie.

I later got to thinking about the liberal caller's choice of movie. First of all, I found it telling that the liberal caller had to go all the way back to 1998 to find a film he thought to be a conservative film, and as luck would have it, he chose wrong.

Speilberg wanted Saving Private Ryan to show the atrocities of war, beginning the film with, as the New York Times called it:

. . . mass slaughter of American soldiers is depicted in a compelling, unforgettable 24-minute sequence.

The idea of the film was to (as one commenter at the New York Times put it) be "horrifying" and "convince humankind to make eradicating war its number one priority."

Liberals seem to think that films like "Saving Private Ryan" are conservative films because of their depiction of war. Remember, the liberal left believes that conservatives are "warmongers" and "glorifiers of war." So, with that warped thinking, of course they think that realistic war movies must be Conservative.

I agree that most Americans want the troops to come home. I am one of those Americans that want the troops to come home. Nobody in their right mind is "Pro-War." But, I do not want the troops to come home under the flag of defeat, or without completing the mission. I want the troops to come home as victors. Coming home as anything less than under the banner of victory will encourage the enemy to strike America again, and a retreat in defeat from Iraq will embolden the enemy to step up their worldwide efforts - and that is not even talking about the message we would be sending to our allies when it comes to our dependability and willingness to finish what we start.

The far left will argue that if I don't like war, then how could I support such military endeavors such as the Iraq? If I am not a warmonger, how is it I can support sending our fine young warriors to a foreign shore to fight?

My answer to that is, "War Sucks. War is a horrible thing. But there are other things that suck much more than war, and because of that, sometimes war is necessary. For those that say war never accomplishes anything, remember that it took war to create this nation, abolish slavery, and stop genocidal maniacs like Hitler.

As for the answer to the question about Conservative Movies, there is one getting ready to hit the theaters this week, as a matter of fact. Every once in a while the Hollywood Right gains the opportunity to put out something that is not Anti-Military, or Anti-America. That most recent endeavor will be released October 3rd, and is called: An American Carol.

The Logan Act is a Federal Law forbidding American citizens not authorized by the President to correspond or meet with foreign governments with the intent of influencing conduct. Violation of the act, which passed in 1799, is a felony, punishable under federal law with imprisonment of up to three years.

There have been no convictions or prosecutions under the Logan Act. The Text of the Act is as follows:

Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

During the Vietnam War when Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy she was guilty of violating the Logan Act. During the Vietnam War when John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris, he too was in violation of federal law.

Nancy Pelosi visiting the Syrian leader, and Jimmy Carter's visits to the Middle East talking down America were both in violation of the Logan Act as well.

And now we have running for president, his Lord the Democratic Messiah, Barrack Hussein Obama. During his recent trip to Iraq it is alleged that Obama tried to negotiate with Iraqi leaders to delay the troop withdrawal (of course he wants credit for any troop withdrawal, and if troops begin withdrawing under the flag of victory now, then if he became president it would look as if he was simply continuing to do what George W. Bush had already begun). Word has it that nobody has been willing to follow Obama's plans of delaying the troop withdrawal.

Notice, the Logan Act has been violated a number of times (surprise! by the liberal left!) yet never with indictments. And the cases I have mentioned above are only the tip of the ice berg. I personally believe that Democrats routinely violate the Logan Act, well knowing that nobody will be willing to prosecute, and even if the GOP tried to launch an investigation, the Republicans would probably not be able to make a charge stick.

The McCain campaign, however, is making sure the Democrats know that The Right has noticed what they are up to.

The Obama Camp has responded to it as well, denying the report that Barry has had secretly urged the Iraqis to postpone a deal to withdraw US troops until after November's election.

Now that is what I call a patriotic president, right? - After all, his wife, Michelle, loves this country - becoming proud of America for the first time in her life when Barack received a political promotion.

POW/MIA Recognition



A Pentagon ceremony for National POW/MIA Recognition Day will be held on Friday, Sept.19, 2008. This ceremony will feature troops from each of the military services. The president will issue a proclamation commemorating the observances and reminding the nation of those Americans who have sacrificed so much for their country.

Observances of National POW/MIA Recognition Day are held across the country on military installations, ships at sea, state capitols, schools and veterans' facilities. This observance is one of six days throughout the year that Congress has mandated the flying of the National League of Families' POW/MIA flag. The others are Armed Forces Day, Memorial Day, Flag Day, Independence Day and Veterans Day. The flag is to be flown at major military installations, national cemeteries, all post offices, VA medical facilities, the World War II Memorial, Korean War Veterans Memorial, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the official offices of the secretaries of state, defense and veterans affairs, the director of the selective service system and the White House.

HONORING THE PLEDGE

Thanks To My Good Friend, MDConservative, for this one.

Thanks Scott

On The Radio Tuesday Night!

ONCE A MARINE - An Iraq War Tank Commander's Inspirational Story of Combat, Courage, and Recovery. Nick Popaditch appeared in an AP photo on April 9, 2003. The striking image was of the Marine tank commander smoking a victory cigar in his tank, the haunting statue of Saddam Hussein hovering in the background. "Gunny Pop" was immortalized forever as "The Cigar Marine." A year later he fought heroically in the First Battle for Fallujah and suffered head wounds that left him legally blind and partially deaf. The United States Marine Corps awarded him a Silver Star for his valor and combat innovation. Coming home, however, is when the toughest fight of his life began - a battle to remain the man and Marine he was. Join Political Pistachio Radio on Tuesday Night at 10:00 pm Eastern Time/7:00 pm Pacific for a riveting interview with Nick Popaditch, a Marine's Marine, a man who embodies everything noble and proud in the Corps' long tradition.

Tonight on Political Pistachio Radio, realizing the tragedies of Hurricane Ike and the Metrolink Crashes in California (Chatsworth, and a half hour later in Corona) had happened shortly after the anniversary of the tragedy of 9/11, I decided tonight to have a show called "The Face of Tragedy." There are those that come through tragedy as victims, and sit and wait for the government to do something about it more often than not; and there are those that come through the storms of life as stronger and more optimistic people. Regardless of the type of tribulation we face, it is also important to remember that the storms of life are temporary. With optimism and hard work the light at the end of the tunnel, which sometimes seems so far away, can be reached.

On the program, after a short monologue about how to endure the storms of life, I told my testimony. I recounted the story about the night I died, and by the grace of God, survived. The tale was to illustrate the point about the temporary nature of the storms we face in life, and how sometimes these difficult times can strike without warning.

Then I received a call from a regular listener of the program, Dean Philpot of Big Oil Fields dot com. Dean resides on the north side of Houston, Texas. The eye of the storm passed through his town, and Ike was still at hurricane strength when it did.

Dean is currently without power and landline phone service, and actually called into the broadcast on his cell phone so that he could listen to tonight's show. When I pulled him up, he explained he had just survived Hurricane Ike, and was kind of perturbed because his ice had melted so he had to throw away his grocery items in the house. He then gave us, on the program, a first hand account of braving Hurricane Ike.

To listen to the entire episode, you can access the archived audio at Blog Talk Radio.

And Dean?

Enjoy the stars tonight. . .

On the morning of September 13, 1814 Francis Scott Key wrote the Star Spangled Banner at Fort McHenry. Below are the words to our National Anthem.

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?


On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Hurricane Ike is a massive hurricane. Ike battered the Texas Coast Saturday morning with driving rain and ferocious wind gusts.

Thousands of homes have been flooded. Roads have been washed out. And, tens of thousands of people defied the orders to leave the area and now need rescuing from their submerged homes or cars.

Hurricane Ike is nearly as large as Texas itself, carrying with it 110 mph winds, and packing a punch that has knocked out power for over a million customers.

Even though it is reported that over a million people fled from the coastal communities in Texas, authorities claim roughly 140,000 people ignored mandatory evacuation orders and are now braving the deadly conditions presented by Hurricane Ike.

A storm surge creating a wall of water two stories high (20 to 25 feet) at the coast has been forcast.

My prayers go out to those folks in Texas.

I remember 9-11-2001 clearly. I remember where I was and what I was doing when I first heard the news. I remember the circumstances that led to my first viewing of the images of those planes flying into the World Trade Center. I remember the pain in my soul. I remember making that phone call in an attempt to re-enter military service, only to be told my time has passed. . . Thank you for your service, but you are not eligible to return to service, Petty Officer Gibbs.

I remember the day the towers fell down, and I remember visiting that site a year later. I remember the story told to me by a man that once worked in those buildings, running late that fateful day, watching the horror of that day from his car as he drove on a nearby roadway. I remember the look in his eyes as he told the story. I remember the silence that fell upon him after he finished telling me about how the New York Skyline just does not look right anymore. I remember how as I walked away how he stared down into the hole that was once the base of the twin towers - searchin - crying. . . for this day I met him was the first day for him to return to the site of the World Trade Center since then towers fell.

I remember my visit to the Pentagon, the people, the lives that mourned the losses on 9-11-2001.

I remember that day in 2001 when a nation joined together to mourn the deaths of fallen Americans. I remember that day as a day the nation united in firm understanding that this nation must be defended, and that any and all nations and peoples that harbor, fund, or support Islamic Terrorism must be brought to justice. I remember the brave men and women that became heroes that day as they did whatever they could to save as many lives as possible. I remember the lives of our military as they sacrifice to keep this nation safe.

I remember the day the towers fell down.

I remember.

Answer me this: If Sarah Palin is inexperienced as the Democrats are claiming, and as the vice presidential candidate she has no power to help the Republicans as the Democrats are claiming, then why is the top of the ticket (Obama) spending so much time discussing her, and why is the liberal bloggers and newscasters spending so much time attacking her?

Could it be that she is a bigger problem for the Obama Campaign than they are willing to admit? Shouldn't they be spending their time dealing with McCain since he is the person at the top of the GOP ticket instead of spending all of their time trying to discredit Palin who is at the bottom of the Republican ticket?

The American Health Care industry is second to none in the world. Seriously ill patients come to the United States for treatment because our commitment to innovation is unmatched, and our research is the envy of the world.

Americans have long believed that one's health is a private matter that should not become the business of government. Therefore, using this reasoning, as far back as 1854 when President Franklin Pierce vetoed a national mental health bill on the basis that it would be unconstitutional to regard health as anything but a private matter in which government should not become, any National Health Care system has been frowned upon.

A member of the Democrat Party, and a major supporter of the socialist agenda, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, favored a national health insurance program and wanted to make it a part of the Social Security Act. He later decided not to follow through with that plan when he realized that opposition to it would likely jeopardize passage of the entire act.

Universal Health Care goes by many names. It is sometimes called Nationalized Health care, Socialized Medicine, and Single Payer Insurance, but in the end, it is still the same - government paid health care, paid for by the dollars of the American taxpayer.

Health Insurance is something that in the early history of this nation was either non-existent, or something the elite could afford. As a result, doctors were subject to the free market, and kept prices affordable and quality high because of the necessity to do so in order to hang on to their customers. Competition was fierce in the industry, and doctors even practiced house calls in order to keep the patients happy.

During the many attempts by the government to make nationalized health care a reality, insurance companies became more willing to reach out to more customers in an affordable manner so that the government wouldn't take their business away from them with a single government paid system. As a result, FDR and Truman were unable to create a national health care system as desired. Truman, in fact, being more conservative than Roosevelt, dropped the pursuit of such a program quickly after becoming president.

As time passed the legal industry became involved, and as lawsuits against the industry rose, so did insurance costs in order to combat the onslaught of litigation they found themselves defending themselves against. And as this happened, insurance companies invested in other markets to deepen their pockets. The medical industry began to charge more in response to the Insurance Company's deep pockets, and began to recommend even unnecessary procedures in a combination of attempting to earn more money, and to cover all of their bases so that legal attacks would be less likely to come to them. Eventually, the cost of medical care became so great that the individual could no longer afford medical care without insurance companies being involved to pay the bills, and this shifted the control of the medical care industry from the consumer/care provider to the lawyers and insurance companies. Long gone were the doctor-patient relationships that kept down prices.

Nonetheless, though American health care can be confusing, impersonal, and more expensive than it needs be, the quality of the American Health care Industry is the best in the world.

It is the cost of health care that has the American public in a quandary, and willing to try just about anything to resolve the nightmare. Apparently, the lawyers, greedy doctors, and out of control insurance industry is the problem. Few deny that. The question is, how do we bring down the costs and make American Medical Care more affordable to the consumer once again?

As expected in a free market economy, it is private enterprise that is making headway in this issue. Entrepreneurs are finding ways to bring innovative, consumer-oriented health care to the market. These entrepreneurs are simplifying medical decisions, and reinvigorating primary care while lowering health-care costs. This health care revolution from the private sector is improving quality, lowering costs, and empowering the people to control their own health care. And the best way for this to move forward, and become successful, is for the government to move out of the way, and make it easier for private enterprise to do what they have always done for this country - provide an answer.

As we learned with the insurance industry, the "payer" becomes the controlling factor, and dictates to the industry what it can and can't do by its decisions on what it will and will not cover. Understanding that part of the equation, why would anyone want the government to have that kind of control over our private matter of health?

The examples liberals have used with me to proclaim the potential success of such a government run system is Medicare (Ken) and the Veteran's Administration medical system (Tom).

Thing is, when compared to private health care, these are both failed systems.

Medicare has become a system that is a failure in all senses of the word. It has become a "complex system of administered pricing and price controls, governed by elaborate statutory formulas and characterized by mind-numbing regulatory micromanagement. In sharp contrast to reimbursement for professional services in other economic sectors, Medicare providers are not paid according to their skill levels, their innovative treatments, the quality of the care delivered to individual Medicare patients, or the specific benefits provided to patients. Moreover, under current government formulas, they can look forward to future reductions in Medicare reimbursement even though they are expected to treat a dramatically larger Medicare population."

The system is going bankrupt before the government's eyes, and so they try to feed more taxpayer money into it to save the beast. Members of Congress have become unhappy with the Medicare physician payment program that they created for good reason.

The VA system for veterans is also heralded by members of the left as a rousing success, and a great example of government paid/controlled health care at its best.

I am a patient in the VA medical system. And I will have to agree that it is heads and tails better now than it was when you compare it to the system in the nineties. I joined VA as a partially-disabled veteran in 1988, and I have seen the best and the worst that the VA system has to offer.

As a veteran I am appreciative of the system. And I don't see it as an entitlement or free system, because VA care has been bought and paid for by the blood of our veterans, and they deserve a system to help them in their post-military years. However, when compared to the private health care system, VA is not exactly the bed of roses the liberal left loonies make it out to be.

To illustrate a couple failings of the VA system, I will use myself as an example.

If I wish to see my doctor at the VA, it usually takes six months. If I push it, I may get in to see him in a few weeks. Immediate care requires a "triage" visit through the emergency room with a doctor not familiar with my case, and all to often once he or she has my record, they do not understand the case. In fact, in two instances the duty doctor prescribed wrong medications that wound up putting me in a crisis situation. With my private doctor in the civilian world, usually I see my doctor the same day. At worse, I see his assistant, or get my doctor the next day.

When a recent ailment arose a few years ago, one that causes me severe pain in certain joint areas of my body, using an internal network of specialists and doctors, VA gave me a diagnosis of what I am experiencing in about six months. I went to my private doctor at the same time, and they had an accurate diagnosis in a couple weeks.

When I go to VA it is usually an all day affair, 5 to 8 hours depending on the tests that need to be run, and the fluids that need to be drawn. At my private physician's office I am in and out of there more often than not in less than two hours, adding another half hour at the place across the street should I need other tests performed, and blood drawn.

Here's my point: Is VA and Medicare a God-send for some folks? Sure it is. And for welfare style health care programs, like what the county hospitals use, use of it by citizens on a temporary basis seems to help in cases of extreme hardship, or bad timing (like if a person becomes injured between jobs and has no insurance at that moment). But considering the government's track record, and the private nature of one's health, do we really desire the government to be the payer (and therefore the controller) of all of our health care in the U.S.? Do we really wish to see our country pursue a system that is a proven failure in Canada and Britain? Do we really wish to see the same entity that runs our Departments of Motor Vehicles with such efficiency (Sarcasm, of course) to run our health care system into the ground while with the private enterprise influence it reigns as currently the best in the world?

I think not.