It is a huge laughing/beaming smiley for those who don’t know. The ‘X’ for the eyes is a convention used by animé artists for years to illustrate squinted/closed eyes… either from extreme pain or a big smile/laugh.

OBAMA/Biden a change we can believe in! XD (tun head on side if not yellow smiley)

i agree with personal responsibility. i do have a problem with ‘deserves’.

there is some things i would support. for example, organ transplant. it is expensive upfront and on a continued basis, and sometimes is for self induced injury, especially the liver. i had a family member who was an alcoholic and would have benefited from liver transplant. i’m kinda glad it didn’t happen and am still against liver transplant for alcoholics or people with hepatitis C from drug abuse.

my problem with ‘deserves’ is who decides that? i’m going to to frame this in religious terms for you. say there’s a person in your congregation who smoked years ago, despite that they knew it was bad for them, but after a difficult battle, with Jesus as there support, have since quit. now, years later, they have bladder cancer. certainly from smoking. should physicians say, sorry, we can’t treat you at all, it’s due to smoking, you’ll die in a few years. or should they operate, maybe cure the cancer?

otherwise they are an excellent Christ-follower and overall good person. there’s a wife and three children still depending on the person.

there is the easy flip answer saying ‘yes, don’t treat them’. i don’t see that ever happening, and don’t support it. and it leads further to more difficult questions. what about a fat person with a heart attack? did they deserve it? should we give them an expensive cardiac catheterization or let them die? and to slide ever further down the slippery slope, what about the atheist who dies of some nasty degenerative disease. do they ‘deserve’ it for not believing as you do?

there are many problems in health care, from all sides. there are patients who live unhealthy, abusive lives and need care. there are anxious patients who have nothing wrong with them but cost a lot of money. there are physicians who do lots of procedures which make money. there is an enormously complex insurance landscape adding some much bureaucracy to the system (the coding and billing framework by itself is so complex that many physicians don’t really understand it very well), for-profit insurance companies (i am not again free markets, but have a STRONG opposition to for-profit health insurance), and many others. high drug costs, for example, i have mixed feeling on. i don’t like them, but realize there is risk and expense to bringing a drug to market. i think there is some abuse and the process can use some tweaking, but do gainsay the high costs overly much. i use the new drugs when they are better, and old drugs when they are cheaper and not inferior.

sorry, i could go on and on, and have a long list of reasons why health care is expensive, and a small list of things that aren’t too hard to change which might make medicine less expensive – 1) get rid of for-profit insurance, and i wouldn’t be upset with a single payer system, but it would have to be a good one. 2) stop paying more for procedures – this last would actually cost me some money personally, but medical procedures are overpaid. there is incentive to do procedures (doing things to people, injections, surgeries, etc.) which are paid a lot more than office visits. i’ll give you a personal example. i believe a new office visit for a full hour might cost a bit under $300 in our office. i can do electrical studies on nerves and muscle, and might bill $500 to $1000 dollars in an hour. yes, it took extra training and expertise, expense for the equipment, and there is slight extra risk, but overall, the practice makes more money. this is true of just about all procedures. now i and the others in the practice do our best not to abuse this, and we give away plenty of care. there are people who abuse this, and it can be true for many procedures.

again, to all, sorry, a long post, but one that i have some personal expertise and opinion on (and that can be aired in this particular forum without being too antagonistic )

Nevertheless, I think (hope?), to a certain extent, all the negative coverage of Palin may also backfire against the liberals. They’ve come out against her so strongly and so hatefully that surely (I hope) people are seeing the true colors of the media. CNN’s refusal* to do much more than acknowledge the blatant and hurtful lie they made in an interview with her this week is something that may come back to bite them. I don’t know… This close to the election it may be a wash. The people whose view of Palin was damaged may be cancelled out by those whose view of Palin was strengthened. But the video clip linked to here is excellent. Greta cuts right to the heart of the matter in my humble opinion.

*I have to give them some kudos for coming clean at all, and I give Griffin the benefit of the doubt. Interviewers are generally using questions researched by interns, etc, so it’s entirely possible he didn’t know that what he was saying was false. However, I agree w/ Van Susteren that the apology was owed to Ms. Palin, who is the one person to whom no public apology was made.

Anyway, random responses to comments time:

Montane, I think your comment is a good one. The Republicans certainly aren’t squeaky clean when it comes to campaigns. However, the difference (in my own humble opinion) is that Obama *is* a young, photogenic neophyte, too inexperienced in foreign affairs to handle the job. And that Palin *does* have more executive experience than him.

So, although I agree that the Repubs ain’t perfect, in this case I think it’s the Dems who are playing dirty.

Scott: what price are you willing to pay for vision and change? If the Democrats control all branches of government for the next four years, we will completely lose our system of checks and balances upon which this democracy was founded. Further, many are predicting the Dems to win a filibuster-breaking 60 seats in the Senate. Meaning they will be able to do essentially whatever they want. Pass any law. Any legislation. Without accountability. That makes me more than nervous in any direction. And even if Obama wanted to be a “moderate” liberal, his record shows that he lacks the political capital to resist his party (96% party-line voting record). And that, of course, assumes he would even want to. Thus, the country will truly be being run by the likes of Nancy Pelosi, and the consequences will last for years. Speaking only of economics, the results this could have on our economic recovery and free-market enterprise could be devastating.

Liz: I agree about socialized medicine. After living in Germany, I’m convinced that socializing health care would be a disaster. Not just for our country, but for the world. The free-market competition of medicine in our country has fueled innovation that has benefited everyone. It has its problems, yes. Insurance is totally cracked, yes. But socializing? Please no…

WarAxe: “The Constitution doesn’t grant the right to free health care — and good thing, too, since “free” is a misnomer — someone ALWAYS pays.”

Bingo

Montane: picking one of your examples of “stupidity or neglect”: motorcycle helmets. Why can’t we say someone deserved a brain hemorrhage for riding 120mph without a helmet? I know that may sound harsh, but there is this massive tendency in our country for people to avoid personal responsibility for their stupid decisions. Riding a motorcycle is an inherently risky endeavor. I should know, I’m a rider myself. And while you/we may not *want* someone to get a brain hemorrhage, I would argue that they deserve the *consequences* of their actions. Before you all concluded I’m heartless, let me clarify: the consequences are *not* certain. I’m not saying they specifically deserve a brain hemorrhage, but rather that they deserve the risk, which means they need to accept the potential outcome. The consequences of riding a motorcycle at high speed without protective gear are a fantastically increased risk of serious injury or death. In other words, the odds get real long. And they deserve the long odds, because they chose freely. I deserve the odds every time I get onto my motorcycle. It is always a risk. Period. Wearing a motorcycle helmet does not ensure I won’t be injured or killed. All it does is help to mitigate that risk. But the difference is that I accept the consequences of my choice. Riding a motorcycle is worth the risks to me because I try to do it wisely: by educating myself about motorcycle helmets and by learning about motorcycle safety. For example by taking motorcycle safety classes, and by trying to ride with wisdom, not with recklessness. Statistically I’ll probably still fall off my bike at some point. But the hope is that my choices will help keep me safe even *if* something happens, and more importantly that I’ve chosen to *accept responsibility* for my decision.

When people believe they deserve expensive health care for their foolish choices like riding without a motorcycle helmet or spending 50 years smoking, I would argue that they deserve no such thing. Now I, as a compassionate person, may choose to help them anyway, but it’s not because they deserve it, it’s because I freely choose to love them.

I agree with your conclusion that maybe we should have some basic, limited coverage for everyone, but for me it’s not because anyone deserves it, it’s because I choose to love them in spite of their stupidity (or, in the case of uninsured children: difficult circumstances beyond their control; which is definitely a different category).

Your Mother: “Evangelical Barbie”? *sigh* you’re right, that’s angering. Not surprising, but I mean, come on, can’t these people come up with even constructive criticism?

Holy cow this is getting long. I’ve gotta cut back… Okay, skipping through all the fun-to-read comments, despite my desire to converse with all…

WarAxe: “People like me aren’t swayed by extraneous clammer — which is why we’re RARELY selected as jurors.”

lol, of course, if our country were wise, we’d choose our jurors very differently, but I digress

As always, all of the above is just my two cents. I have many opinions. But I hope that I always stay willing to consider the other side. Thus, any and all responses are always welcome.

-StanTheMan

No worries on moderation, I saw your post that your spam count has hit 150,000! That’s pretty funny. And makes spam filtering a definite necessity.

Alright, let’s see if I can get this other thing posted now…

With regard to the comment on this particular post… I didn’t see it in my moderation queue, so it might have gone into the “great ether”. Please post it again!

Should I re-post? Re-word? De-linkify? Or is it just sitting in moderation limbo and I should go do something constructive

Thanks! Lemme know.

StanTheMan

Go McCain/Palin!
http://www.JeremyBuff.com

Your question is almost a funny one. People like me aren’t swayed by extraneous clammer… which is why we’re RARELY selected as jurors.

didnt finish my comment

@John

About how politicians in Washington can’t stay out of others business.

I agree to a certain point.

Being one of the most powerful nations in the world (though the lead seems to be slipping away) it is our duty to deal in other countries affairs. As a nation in the world that affects every other nation in the world it is our responsibility to at least try and fix some of the world’s problems.

On what grounds can you call Sarah Palin stupid?

And dont even mention because she only has a BA in whatever.

And quite frankly, i could care less what people in Europe think. They are not in the U.S. and SHOULD have no voice in it’s elections (i.e. the moronic VMA host that began the entire show my bashing Bush and blindly promoting Barack Obama)

@John

“So this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.” -Star Wars (tee hee)

Well, Europe can stay out of America’s business. But then again, the politicians in Washington can’t stay out of anyone elses business. I guess one bad turn deserves another. . . eye for an eye you know.

My English is too bad and limited to write an intelligent comment; but, I’ve seen that youre English had to be as bad as mine.
Frankly, Palin is too stupid to be a vicepresident of United States, and everyone should be aware of that.

In Europe we are aware of that, at least.