Those who suggest that Obama is taking on more than he can chew are probably closer to the truth that those who actually oppose health care reform. I was around for the Civil Rights movement and the Civil Rights Amendment. In those days it was a Governor from the "great' State of Georgia, and about every "Southern White Democrat" in Congress led the disinformation campaign that tried (and failed) to polarize the country on the altruism of the Separate but Equal Doctrine. Today, its the likes of Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, and some Texas based elected lobbyist (I think they call them Senators in Texas) who couldn't sell "Socialist" so they're changing their focus to Nazis.

Where were these guys when Bush and Cheney were raping the world and the economy?

but Nazis were socialists - that's why they called themselves "national-socialists". BTW, if medical care is a civil right, then so is sex. Right?

Those guys, like gringo, were busy masturbating to pics of Bush in the flight suit, I think.

These guys now don't know any more facts about the health care bills than they did about Bush and Cheney and the war in Iraq. They just can't handle that they lost, especially to a black guy had the temerity to call Bush out on Iraq from the get-go. Doesn't matter that he was right all along. They have to make him the feared "other" and they're running out of time because the economy is going to reflect well on Obama's competence. They're bringing the crazy now, it's all they got.

As is proven by a Chicago interview in 2004, Obama said his position on Iraq was the same as Bush's. Something Bill Clinton knew very well and pointed out famously during the campaign. As for the health care bill, it depends on which one your talking about - the finance committe one, the House one.etc.. The question of health care for illegal aliens and whether or not people can keep their present insurance plan if they like it are just two examples of issues which cause disagreement with regard to what the 'bill' actually says.

Those guys, like gringo, were busy masturbating to pics of Bush in the flight suit, I think.

No, Bush was way too left-wing for me. He spent too much money, his prescription drugs benefit was awful, he drastically increased federal spending.

In short, like any liberal you base your views on the caricature of the opposing side, not by actually familiarizing with its view.

These guys now don't know any more facts about the health care bills than they did about Bush and Cheney and the war in Iraq.

We surely know more than Obama, who said openly he was not familiar with the bill. Does that count? BTW, did you manage to find any inaccuracy in what I said abotu the bill - btw, there are 5 bills at least right...

They just can't handle that they lost, especially to a black guy had the temerity to call Bush out on Iraq from the get-go.

You guys are obcessed with race - to me what mattered was that he was a racialist, a marxist, and he was anti-American in the most deepest sense. I did not care about his skin color - I am not like you.

Doesn't matter that he was right all along.

You mean, when he said in 2003 that his position on Iraq was pretty much the same as Bush's? Ahm? Oh, you don't remember this, right?

They have to make him the feared "other"

Don't try to analyze me, kid. To me - he is not "the other", I know his type very well.

and they're running out of time because the economy is going to reflect well on Obama's competence. They're bringing the crazy now, it's all they got.

If you think the economy will reflect well on Obama's crazy government spending, over-regulation and nationalization - I suggest you buy yourself a bridge. If you suspect that I, a supporter of "Austrian school of economics" believe Obama's economic policies will be sucessful - I suggest you get your head examined. There is no doubt that economy will suffer horribly because of Obama - it's only the question of when. Surely spending trillions of dollars will bring a momentary drug-induced fake "relief" - but it will be all eaten away by inflation, and things will get much worse. The storm has not yet begun, comrade.

“On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.”

And when I said from the get-go, back when no one was listening to those who knew how it was likely to go with Jr. Bush and 5 deferment Cheney in charge, I meant this one:

<link>

If you believe there is no cost-efficiency or just pure human decency in curing an illegal alien's child of some contagion, then you will have to sort out if that's a reason for you to oppose the bill, so be it, and I'm not sure what in any of the bills leads you to believe people won't be allowed to keep the plan they have. It's not really up to most of us what plan we have since our employers can and do change it anytime they want, anyway. But I can thank you for not pretending that the government's going to kill all the old folks because of any of these plans.

If so, how many illegal alliens, including children have you cured today?

Seems to be part of your boiler plate,though.

"In short, like any liberal you base your views on the caricature of the opposing side, not by actually familiarizing with its view."

Since you apparently weren't visiting Slate back when you had these negative feelings about Bush's economic policy, I guess I can't swear that you were okay with his handling of Iraq. Apparently, however, you felt no need to criticize him on Slate at all. Did you criticize him in any public forum for that?

As for your sneaky brand of racism, it's too cute by half. Your posts on race are always accusing someone else of being racist to the poor downtrodden white man, like the post you did about Rosa Parks and how some studies show white people work harder, you couched it in a criticism of someone else's logic, but you're not really that opaque.

"I know his type very well"

Do tell. No stereotyping for you, right, gringo?

"There is no doubt that economy will suffer horribly because of Obama - it's only the question of when"

Well, since it's his first year, and the unemployment numbers and lost jobs numbers and stock market are all up since he took over, I think there may not be "NO" doubt that we will suffer, but thanks for the irony, since the numbers are well in on Bush, yet you don't bother to concede that it was already suffering horribly when Obama took office.

I'm fine with it. Is that what you mean, or are you just babbling to hear your own voice?

from the national coalition on health care:

• In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1
• Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3
• In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1
• Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3
• Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4

Employer and Employee Health Insurance Costs

• Premiums for employer-based health insurance rose by 5.0 percent in 2008. In 2007, small employers saw their premiums, on average, increase 5.5 percent. Firms with less than 24 workers, experienced an increase of 6.8 percent.2
• The annual premium that a health insurer charges an employer for a health plan covering a family of four averaged $12,700 in 2008. Workers contributed nearly $3,400, or 12 percent more than they did in 2007.2 The annual premiums for family coverage significantly eclipsed the gross earnings for a full-time, minimum-wage worker ($10,712).
• Workers are now paying $1,600 more in premiums annually for family coverage than they did in 1999.2
• Since 1999, employment-based health insurance premiums have increased 120 percent, compared to cumulative inflation of 44 percent and cumulative wage growth of 29 percent during the same period.2
• Health insurance expenses are the fastest growing cost component for employers. Unless something changes dramatically, health insurance costs will overtake profits by the end of 2008.5
• According to the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust, premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States have been rising four times faster on average than workers’ earnings since 1999.2
• The average employee contribution to company-provided health insurance has increased more than 120 percent since 2000. Average out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments for medications, and co-insurance for physician and hospital visits rose 115 percent during the same period.6
• The percentage of Americans under age 65 whose family-level, out-of-pocket spending for health care, including health insurance, that exceeds $2,000 a year, rose from 37.3 percent in 1996 to 43.1 percent in 2003 – a 16 percent increase.7

The Impact of Rising Health Care Costs

• National surveys show that the primary reason people are uninsured is the high cost of health insurance coverage.2
• Economists have found that rising health care costs correlate to drops in health insurance coverage.8
• A recent study by Harvard University researchers found that the average out-of-pocket medical debt for those who filed for bankruptcy was $12,000. The study noted that 68 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance. In addition, the study found that 50 percent of all bankruptcy filings were partly the result of medical expenses.9 Every 30 seconds in the United States someone files for bankruptcy in the aftermath of a serious health problem.
• A new survey shows that more than 25 percent said that housing problems resulted from medical debt, including the inability to make rent or mortgage payments and the development of bad credit ratings.10
• About 1.5 million families lose their homes to foreclosure every year due to unaffordable medical costs. 11
• A survey of Iowa consumers found that in order to cope with rising health insurance costs, 86 percent said they had cut back on how much they could save, and 44 percent said that they have cut back on food and heating expenses.12
• Retiring elderly couples will need $250,000 in savings just to pay for the most basic medical coverage.13 Many experts believe that this figure is conservative and that $300,000 may be a more realistic number.
• According to a recent report, the United States has $480 billion in excess spending each year in comparison to Western European nations that have universal health insurance coverage. The costs are mainly associated with excess administrative costs and poorer quality of care.14
• The United States spends six times more per capita on the administration of the health care system than its peer Western European nations.14

Health Care is not the new Civil Rights, as our founding documents indicate that all men are created equal, and the injustices to people based on their color is Unconstitutional. Unfortunately it took the Civil Rights Movement to correct that error, in what should have been evident in the first place as it says so explicitly in our founding documents. There is no language in our Constitution that guarantees healthcare. In fact, I argue that your equating the two really diminishes the unfortunate sacrifices, hardship, and turmoil that some people had to go through in this country with regards to Civil Rights. Now if you said gay marriage is the New Civil Rights then you'd at least be closer to comparing apples to apples.