Judas got 30 pieces of silver -- a Senate seat pays way more than that !

While the rhetoric is sophmoric at best, it is at least mildly pleasing to see a Republican making an argument with some actual basis in recent facts in the news. At least it's not "death panels," which for Republicans has to be considered a step in the right direction.

In fact an argument can be made that in order to achieve cost savings, a national public plan has to balance the cost and frequency of tests and other treatments against improvement in health outcomes. It's a rational response in a world with finite resources.

But the problem for Republicans is that insurance companies are already making these decisions every day!!! And not with their clients best interests in mind, but the profits for their shareholders.

I'd much rather have a national health care system making decisions based on science, cost, and responsive to the will of the people.

well goddam the state of utah! to hell!

the irony of the beehive state is that the sick-ass mormon misogynistic cult makes it the most backward, patriarchal, piece of crap state in the union.

The Republicans just cannot help themselves -- they reflexively attack at every available opportunity, no matter how thin the pretext or how obvious the lie. From the birth certificate to the death panels to the whole "czar" thing, they are addicted to the sugar rush of the political attack.

This is even worse than being "the party of no." This is a party with absolutely no strategic thinking. It's all tactical, and there's only one tactic: shoot at anything that moves.

In the short run, you can do some damage this way. But in the long run, you're not building anything or going anywhere unless you have a plan. And the GOP has no plan.

well goddam the state of utah! to hell!

While I won't be churlish enough to suggest that your 10,000th "goddamn X to hell" post is less minty-fresh than your first, I will ask you to explain what the fuck Utah has to do with this.

Kirk is probably doomed in the general election. He has to go far to the right because that's the heart of the Illinois GOP these days (they are the ones who drafted Alan Keyes four years ago). Once he has the nomination, if he tries to moderate his stance to appeal to the less crazy among us, he'll lose the GOP base. And Democrats won't vote for him because of the bat-shit crazy stuff he's saying now. So he looks like toast no matter what he does.

LD's coment is why I expect this next election will give Democrats gains rather than losses as most people are predicting. "Generic" Republicans may run equal or better than Dems, but Republicans have given up nominating "Generics."

However, Steve, your explanation, or rather the NYT's, was very confusing. It took me three readings to thinnk I understood it, then I reread it and found I still had it wrong.

In the first place, it is discussing Medicare and few women in their forties -- only those like my wife who have been declared disabled -- get Medicare.

Second, all it is saying is that, because of the low-benefit for mammograms for women that young -- it is VERY high-benefit for the usual Medicare age woman -- rather than having their co-pay waived, they'll still have to pay it, nothing more.

I don't see how it makes mammograms more accessible, but it certainly doesn't make them any less than they currently are.

So I guess Kirk is now on record in favor of forcing all insurance companies to fully cover every test or procedure out there if there's even a remote possibility that it could save a life. Wow.

But what if I really need a life-saving abortion? My chance of discovering a cancerous lump via a mammogram, slim...my chance of dying from pregnancy related issues at my age are high. So, let me get this clear...My breasts are important so long as I am forced to breed with out my consent.

got it.

Steve: "It's a genuine shame to see what some Republicans are willing to do to get a win a primary."

Well, show me the rare Republican nowadays who places his or her principles over party politics, and I'll introduce you to the projected runner-up in the GOP primary.

If this helps them win elections, why should they care whether it's correct or not? It's not like integrity and truthfulness are big issues -- they think their voters are easily-led idiots. They may be right.

But if the voter only hears the lie....

That's what repubs count on. Out of say...100 people that hear it, 50 believe it and later on 25 of them figure out it was a lie that still leaves 25 who buy it...that's what repubs hope for...that's why they put so much misinformation out there. If Fox can do it...well then....

Lost in all this, of course, is that the Task Force got the science correct. But, nevertheless, the well-off US middle class demands to be overmedicated and overtested.

i've watched them for 50+ years, and i'll keep saying it: when dealing with the illinois republican party, you can't go too wingnut crazy too soon.
(btw, wilson46201, the illinois senate seat isn't worth 30 pieces of silver. i believe it's "fucking golden.")

The question I'd like to have answered is why this task force delivered this recommendation at this time -- it was bound to be exploited by opponents of health care reform as an example of government "rationing" getting between you and your doctor. Politically tone-deaf bureaucrats? Maybe. But I'd give odds that a Republican "mole" pushed this release before someone higher up could make a decision to perhaps delay a couple of months.

Kirk's own proposal would endanger coverage for mammograms. Kirk proposes a national market for health care, allowing plans to avoid inconvenient state laws. Mammograms are mandated coverage under the laws of some states, but not all. If health insurance plans are allowed to pick and choose the state law that governs them while being allowed to sell insurance in all other states, they can choose governing state law that does not have mandates for services like mammograms. So, Kirk is the one who seeks to make it harder for women to get mammograms.

Wow! Utah is a piece of shit state. The only one not to look out for women, huh? What is it about Utah? Is there something unique about Utah? Oh, I know. It's the mormon cult. I guess if they let a guy have 5 wives, they REALLY are not out for women's rights. I wonder if Orrin Hatch had anything to do with this. Look up mormon church in wikipedia and read about how James Smith found some magic shield and translated all the words on it to write the Book of Mormon. Experts have said what he translated from is complete gibberish and he just made it up. That cult runs that whole state. Poor little girls are dying to get out of there. Fuck Utah.

Wow this is a interesting discussion, I wonder what our country feels is a fair wage to live a decent american dream life. I curently am 54 and make 45000.00 a year running a company. My wife does not work and is our grandchildren babysitter.My healtcare sucks and we our just getting by. Infact we have no money for xmas and will probably get behind in our bills to cover winter heating cost. My son in law says my problems are due to not going to higher education for me after high school. My problems began when the clothing industry left this country where i spent 35 years.I guess what my comment is, what should a GM worker make. It seems to me that if a one person household makes under 50000.00 they will barely get by...

xmas gifts

Mark Kirk's own health care reform proposal creates more risk that insurance plans will not be required to cover mammograms than anything in current proposed legislation. Kirk wants to create a national insurance market and have the federal government pre-empt state insurance law. Mammograms are not covered by the goodness of the industry's heart. It's mandated under the laws of most states. Under Kirk's proposal, those mandates would go away and the coverage will too. Kirk does this sort of thing all the time. He spends our tax dollars on these sort of push poll like questions written to elicit the response he wants claiming its the skewed results to campaign.