What is Digg?121 Comments
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -12/+120While we are having a history lesson, maybe we could hop over the border to Iran ?
In 1953, the MI5 and CIA over threw the democratically elected Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh. Why did they do this ? Because he privitised the oil fields and BP didn't get a slice of the cake. How did they do this ? Why by spreading propaganda, using false flag terrorism, gunning people down, bombings, paying off police and protesters. Many of these things are even on the CIA's own webpage ..
https://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol48no2/article10.html
Look at what we have done ..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz5AdRVjSIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M06RJtRkv80
We should be ***** ashamed of ourselves for what we have done to the middle east, even before the invasion of Iraq .. - chrono13, on 10/12/2007, -9/+33It is only going to get worse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Implications_of_an_unmitigated_world_peak
Almost every single study has found that oil is not infinite. A few studies from Oil companies disagree, but the interesting point is that most of these studies show the crude hitting the fan right about... any time now actually.
Not to be alarmist, because I believe that overall we will be OK as we begin to rely more heavily on nuclear power.
The worst atrocities, war crimes, and mass-murder for black gold, however, are likely yet to come. Quite unfortunately soon. - DJShay, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18America wants to control what oil is left in the region. Period.
- billoday, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I'm sorry, I didn't see anyone saying that French Imperialism was excellent. I see a lot of people saying that ensuring American interests should take precedence over local interests is a surefire way to make a situation worse. Funny how history has played that out.
By the way, Hippocrates was a doctor; the word you're looking for is: hypocrite. You were kind of giving us a compliment by proxy of ignorance, which of course is the problem with your perspective: it's simply ignorant.
Go back to school, read a few books written by someone without a vested interest (it is tricky, but it does happen), and learn something before opening your mouth and spewing feces, kthnxbye. - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14They're ancient greek proto-doctors now?
- cl0r0x70, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Q: Why is Bush so sure that Hussein has weapons of mass destruction?
A: He has the receipt.
-Paul Mooney - William01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13You mean the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran, conducted by Britain and the Soviet Union during WWII. All Soviet troops left in 1946, and all Soviet oil concessions were revoked. Britain's were not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran
Mohammed Mossadegh became the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1951. - Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Great lessons, dukeeeey. There's something else I'd like you to consider, though. When you say "we should be ashamed," why do you lump all of us here in with those vile monsters in the government who have murdered so many thousands of people, and made the lives of countless millions an unbearable hell? I think one of the main reasons this evil continues is that good people like yourself have a tendency to identify themselves with their government.
The government are not "we" any more than the Mafia are the poor shopkeepers they shake down for protection money. Yes, large swaths of my productivity are diverted into the massive killing machine of the US military and CIA, but not by any choice of mine. When someone holds a gun to your head and says, "Your money or your life," it's hard not to comply. (In less figurative language, it's "your taxes or we ruin your life."
Even more than history lessons, I believe we in the US need to reexamine our philosophy and principles. The government is force. There is no such thing as a social contract, which every child signs upon birth, requiring them to submit forever to the will of their rulers (or the majority of voters, for that matter). There is no "we" for me in the US government's heinous actions, because everything the state does, it does against my will, and to my abject horror. Please consider changing your own "we" into a "they." I think you'll be surprised at how such a subtle change can make a huge difference in your perspective. I'm not ashamed. I'm horrified and angry. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16>"I'm so sick of arming the world, then sending troops over to destroy the ***** arms, you know what I mean? We keep arming these little countries, then we go and blow the ***** out of them. We're like the bullies of the world, y'know. We're like Jack Palance in the movie Shane, throwing the pistol at the sheepherder's feet. "Pick it up." "I don't wanna pick it up, Mister, you'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun." "Mister, I don't want no trouble. I just came downtown here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about ten rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, Mister." "Pick up the gun." (He picks it up. Three shots ring out.) "You all saw him - he had a gun." -Bill Hicks
- dukeeeey, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16they need studies to work out a finite resource actually is finite ? :) They need studies to see if the world is isn't flat too ? Just kidding .. but back on a serious note.
I think these words from Dick Cheney (in 1999) are very telling ..
'By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from? Governments and the national oil companies are obviously controlling about ninety per cent of the assets. Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the worldâs oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious lor greater access there, progress continues to be slow.' - jstohler, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Odds that the neocons will learn ANYTHING from Iraq: nil.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"You forgot to mention where Mossadegh came from? He wasn't elected. He was installed by Moscow after they invaded Iran."
That isn't true at all, unless you believe the red scare "news" of the 1950s. It was said a lot, but it wasn't proven, and he came to power democratically until the US backed coups broke him down.
Check "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" for a great read on this and the rest of the corporate/military/govt collusion history. - billoday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Communism, comrade, has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has everything to do with public ownership of property. Communism is an economic principle, not a political one. It never was democracy v. communism; it always was capitalism v. communism. In both economic systems, fascism as a political force can flourish, and it has, just not here.
If Kevin Rose rose up and stated that any moron with the typing skills of a three year old could only state the opinion of Kevin Rose and to do otherwise would result in an IP block placed on your access to the site, that would be fascism. For me to take offense at your sophomoric and, ultimately, logically incoherent attempt justifying an increasingly unjustifiable war is simply good taste. Thank you and good night. - NijiDaku, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10yeah the evildoer terrorist master minds must be defeated so we can spread freedom and build nations! Not been paying attention the last few years?
- jeffbarnett513, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The entire Western Civilization has been "meddling" in Iraq since Britain and France divided the middle east up with a map and a ruler in the 1800s. The region has never fully stabilized and created a non-hostile government. We consider ourselves a young country at 230+ years old. Most of the middle east's political boundaries were formed in the 20th century. Israel, for example, formed in 1948. The entire region is very politically young, and I don't think any one entity is purely responsible for the chaos that consumes it.
- cl0r0x70, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Comments like this are so dumb, that it makes me think they have to be trolls.
As a Libertarian, I have big problems with both political parties.
About a year ago, I decided that every conservative couldn't be as idiotic as Limbaugh and O'Reilly. If millions of people all believe something, then there has to be SOMETHING to it, so I went looking for a conservative viewpoint that wasn't Fox News.
When I want to hear a conservative voice that doesn't sound like a retarded monkey -- and they're had to find -- I subscribe to KCRW's "Left, Right and Center" podcast. I find that all sides seem to be presented fairly logically, without a lot of the ridiculous rhetoric you hear in mainstream media, and Tony Blankley does a good job representing a reasonable conservative viewpoint (that I largely disagree with.)
I think it's important to try to understand views that you don't disagree with. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Brainwashed son-of-a-bitch.
- jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17"Can we get a better source... this is like PETA saying "Fur is bad!"
60 minutes is hardly PETA. - ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Also this quote from Cheney from 1990:
"Whoever controls the flow of Persian Gulf oil has a stranglehold not only on our economy but also on the other countries of the world as well." - byronne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'd rather not end up with nothing but an alley tomorrow. Seriously, being interventionist in a military manner is bullying, not looking after national interest.
- boomboxer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6george - it would have served our national interests not to have helped saddam come to power in the first place. duh...
- loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Good interview.....thanks for posting it. I'm glad the subject of the Iraq/Iran war is being discussed more frequently as it is not possible to get a full picture of the current situation without understanding just how brutal, devasting and lasting its consequences were (not to mention the role of the west in prolonging it and how it bought us to where we are today). If anyone is interested in learning more about Iraq/Iran war, I strongly recommend picking up a copy of Robert Fisks 'The Great War of Civilisation'. It's a fairly personal and very angry account that spends a great deal of time focusing on the post WWII history of Iraq and Iran (and the wests involvement). It's highly illuminating, readable and helps to shed light on the current regional calmities. Get out there and get it read.
- thefirelane, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I 100% agree.... and as soon as I'm able to vote in France, I'll be sure to punish those responsible... until then, why not try to fix what you can instead of holding yourself to the standard of "I'm not *worse* than them"
- loudribs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Granted, but lets face it....it's not 'your' region and the only reason you were involved was to try and strip the area of its resources so that you could use them. Considering that the Iraq/Iran war cost millions of lives and was abetted by the US (and many other western nations) it seems a little glib to say that it wasn't a 'perfect situation'. Only when America learns that it cannot impose its will to the detriment of those its imposing on without serious and lasting repucusions will this world look any safer.
- Julolidine, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Oil obviously isn't infinite, but there is an absolutely mind boggling amount still remaining - easily enough for the world to last centuries. The problem is its very difficult and or expensive to extract. So as the price of oil increases, or the technologies get better, more and more oil becomes 'available'.
This also discounts the fact that the US coal deposits exceed the sum of the worlds oil reserves in terms of energy.
We won't run out of hydrocarbon sources anytime soon. However, that doesn't mean that they don't suck for the environment, and are completely inefficient. - boomboxer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5lol btw elmer, not that communism is good, but is that what you think communism is? at least learn what it is before you go and accuse people of be communists.
- Schmerz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I challenge to you explain what communism is, because it's obvious that you don't have a clue...
- boomboxer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5LOL, typical hilarious argument! attribute a contradictory position to someone and then argue against it, even though they never said that was their position.
no one said France is squeaky clean either, did they? no. try again. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6America is making the same mistake Rome did when they tried to occupy Mess' O Potamia
Here's an article that talks about it from geo-pol perspective
http://weekendeconomist.blogspot.com/2007/01/22-new-silk-road.html - alkaloid, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9I like how they completely omitted Clinton's actions in Iraq. ONE semi-question about sanctions about a guy who was President for eight years??? Rewriting history by omission is disgusting.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm an Iranian grown up and studied after the 1979 Iran's revolution and under the Western support Iraq/Iran war for 8 continuous years.
After almost not a long time after this war, the country started to keep itself together and civilize. Now again, the same Western countries have started a hype this time for what they claim is the nuclear weapons but Iran is just enriching uranium, which based on IAEA is absolutely legal. They say we hate Jews but in fact Iran has the second largest Jewish community in the region after Israel, with even MPs in Parliament.
Iran has signed the NPT at IAEA and has opened its doors to the IAEA inspectors but the Israeli regime who convicts Iran of trying to access the nuclear weapons has already got around 100 nuclear warheads and has not signed the NPT.
Iran has not attacked any country in the last 350 years, how many attacks Israel has had during the past 50 years?
What have we done that we deserve another war? Why? - jaycliche, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13"Almost every single study has found that oil is not infinite. A few studies from Oil companies disagree, but the interesting point is that most of these studies show the crude hitting the fan right about... any time now actually."
I followed that theory for a while, but then I found a learned a lot of evidence that we are in fact not running low on oil and that millions have been spent by the oil companies to promote this idea. If people think the supply is low, prices can be raised and demand will go up. - boomboxer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4umm.... look, don;t rope me into being an all out clinton defender here, but clinton's actions against Iraq were not an attempt at nation-building. that's the difference. clinton's policy was one of conatainment - a policy that Mr. Bush would have been wise to continue.
- William01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Socialized medicine is a nightmare, Europe will crumble economically because of it."
The US spends more per capita for our private healthcare system than any other country in the world. This is the reason Medicare (not Social Security, which is virtually the only government program that doesn't require borrowed money to run) is unsustainable.
"* The nations examined [the OECD nations comprising the developed world] spend a median of $2,193 per capita on health care;
* The United States spent $5,267 per capita for prescription drugs, hospital stays and physicians visits in 2002, compared with $3,446 per capita for Switzerland, the next highest spender;
* Health care spending accounted for 14.6% of the U.S. gross domestic product in 2002, a time when only two other nations -- Switzerland and Germany -- spent more than 10% of their GDP on health care;
* The United States has 2.9 hospital beds per 1,000 residents, compared with a median of 3.7 beds per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined;
* The United States had 2.4 physicians per 1,000 residents in 2001, compared with a median of 3.1 physicians per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined in 2002;
* The United States had 7.9 nurses per 1,000 residents in the United States in 2001, compared with a median of 8.9 nurses per 1,000 residents among the other nations examined in 2002;
* The United States has 12.8 CT scanners per one million U.S. residents, compared with a median of 13.3 scanners per one million residents among the other nations examined;
* The United States appears to have more magnetic resonance imaging machines per capita than many of the other nations examined, but the machines are used only 10 hours daily in the United States, compared with a median of 18 hours daily in other nations; and
* The average medical malpractice payment, which included both settlements and judgments, was $265,103 in the United States in 2001, compared with $309,417 in Canada and $411,171 in Britain..."
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27348 - 00Dan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4But... I thought it was because they are ignorant uneducated nomads who hate your "freedom" and want to force women to wear burka's?
At least thats what Fox News said, and why would they lie? - teskar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree with you Azish. Regardless of how I personally view the political situation in Iran, it is no one's place to police them. The United States is undermining international security and destroy their reputation internationally.
Say what you will armyabn1 about the US "obligation" to "defend" the world from "terrorists", but think for a minute about how much these actions, sanctions, wars, etc are going to cost your children. - ekso, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18And we've burned enough oil already. Look at the environment. We have enough dirt. Compare the snow at the side of roads with the ones in a sidewalk, in the road it gets all brownish and dark, full of oil leftover, while on the sidewalks it doesn't.
We are in 2007 already, it's time to move to CLEAN energy sources. - whisperedlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3oohh... outsiders have been meddling with the Middle East long before the US and Eisenhower. Even in more recent history, Russia, France and Britain were really fouling things up before the US came along. Before them we had Ottomans, Byzantines, Romans, and so on. To further compound outside influence, they have been constantly at war with themselves.
I'm not mitigating or trivializing US policies in the Middle East, I am trying to underscore the history of that region and the components that have created the situations we have to live with today. The Middle East and the economical/cultural/religious strife that has raked it did not suddenly materialize in the 20th century. The problems there were only sharply worsened because of interest in energy resources that quickly became the foundation of Western economies.
Good intentioned or not, Westerners expect Western ideas and Western concepts to solve Middle Eastern problems. One step that we all need to make is to truly educate ourselves about their history and culture. Not just the fluff or grazed over crap you get in junior high history books. You cannot expect to help nations of people if you do not understand what they want, what they feel, and what they have been through. - Schmerz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You're wrong, elmerf6900, we're all for democracy here. Don't believe me? Why would a website catering to communists have a voting system?
- Csabo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Come on buddy, you should know already that as soon as we see another searchjerk spam, it's an automatic Block/Report this user.
- bobthebruce123, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How does changing the focus to another country make this any better? Are you aware of the ridiculous fallacies in your argument? This is like saying to your wife, "I cheated on you", she getting upset, and then you yelling, "Oh I see, what about all the rest of those men cheating on THEIR wives?" You weren't pissed THEN!"
No one said squat about France, at least not in this post until you brought it up. It's nice to have a FOCUSED discussion sometimes. - billoday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I have been somewhat unclear, mainly because I think that simply stating American dominance has a nasty way of making the opposite true quickly (for this example, let's use Cold War technologies- it was fear of the Soviets overtaking us that gave a drive to push into space, create new rockets, and develop technologies that would survive a nuclear attack). Current dominance is more true in medicine than technology. America drives tech by consumption. if we want to look at who drives it by innovation, we need to look at infrastructure. And, based on the fact that broadband saturation is lower here than Western Europe, as well as cellular networks in both Europe and Japan. We spend a lot of money (I would argue more than almost any other nation), so international companies take an interest in our desires. But most of our implemented technologies were developed overseas (theoretical tech is generally developed over here, although I hear that both MSFT and Google's labs in China have some really impressive work coming out of there). In medicine, you have some countries (China being an obvious one) that realize that American policy is harming our ability to innovate, and they are subsidizing research and development for newer technologies. If you have something that might be treatable only by stem cell therapy and oodles of money, your doctor will send you to China for treatment, because they have done enough research to begin human testing. America, by comparison, still forces private organizations to spend billions on funding research that would benefit the public more than the organization (Harvard being the one I am thinking of here).
In order to be top dog, you have to be willing to work at staying top dog by thinking you aren't. Progress, both technological and social, requires a willingness to innovate, which requires an ability to critically look at the status quo. Can you really tell me that we, as a nation, are doing that? - GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The Shah signed the NPT. If you expect me to believe that the mullahs put any value on agreements made by the Shah then you're asking me to believe the unbelievable.
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I challenge to you explain what communism is, because it's obvious that you don't have a clue..."
Why would you ask someone that doesn't have a clue to explain something? - drazen77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@billoday
On this we absolutely agree. I am all about reformation of current policies that inhibit our ability to progress.
If the U.S. wanted to completely dominate (at least for now, until China fully develops) economically, tax reform is a must. Be it a flat tax, or national sales tax or some combination of the two... it would make it very hard to compete against the U.S. in terms of drawing capital to this country. Of course, the requirement is that, they don't just "add" this to tax policy, they remove existing bad policy and replace it with this. Doubt we will see it anytime soon.
Same goes for the pyramid scheme we call social security. Over my lifetime I will have contributed over half a million dollars to it... I won't ever see any of that money when I retire.
Socialized medicine is a nightmare, Europe will crumble economically because of it. Yet we blindly follow a similar path.
You cite China for medicine... that's great. However, given their humanitarian policies... its hard to judge as to whether their research or abilities derive from humane research or something similar to Nazi Germany's forced experimentation on the Jews. Its hard to give China credit for such things when they are actively destroying Tibet, in every way possible, and it all being systematic.
Regardless of what you might think, we are still leaders in innovation. Are we slipping from that post? Yes, we are. More than likely due to our sorry state of Education in this country. But for whatever reason, we are still attract the best and the brightest from around the world. The problem as I see it is that we aren't doing enough to promote the best and the brightest within our own country... and that is a damn shame. - clay201, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Well since the US was responsible for Saddam and his actions, wouldn't unseating him be the right thing to do?"
First of all, the US has never apologized for their Saddam related crimes and never stopped trying to control the country's oil through sanctions and so forth. What reason is their to trust the US (or any other foreign country, for that matter) to bring a massive military into Iraq?
There were plenty of ways that Saddam could have been overthrown without an invasion. Both the Shiites and the Kurds tried in the period immediately following the Gulf War, but we stopped them. If not for the sanctions, there's a very good chance the Shiites would've gotten him sometime during the 90s.
And whatever else happened or didn't happen, the people of Iraq should have been allowed to decide whether the US military entered their country again.
But even if you were right and we had an obligation to go invade Iraq (an obligation to invade a country. Jesus. What kind of fascists are we?), we should have left as soon as Saddam was out of power. So even by your logic, we've been there three years too long. That's how many dead Iraqis? - MrVictor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Elmerf6900,
Hmmm...You seem to be unable to form a coherent thought. It would be in best interest of the digg community and the world that you drink some bleach and remove yourself from the gene pool. - billoday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2i think this may be the most important point to consider when thinking about the region. The Middle East was once the crossroads of civilization (long after it gave birth to it). Western thought and Eastern thought merged, fought, and profited on those sands. Yet, we do seem to spend a lot of time treating them as savages (to use a term used to describe Native Americans) and barbarians (used to describe anyone not Roman). Much of what happens in the Middle East without assistance bothers my Western sensitivities, of course so does much that happens in the West. My first response shouldn't be to open fire on those I disagree with.
Of course, this is the issue I have with our military philosophy. In normal society, if a neighbor is doing something that I find detestable, I need to figure out if it is in violation of the law (Geneva Conventions, for those metaphorically-challenged). If what they are doing turns out to appear legal to me, I just don't hang around them and tell my family to keep their distance (trade sanctions). If what they are doing is breaking the law, I go to the police (UN) and tell them everything I know. If the police decide they need to charge the individual (military intervention), I will support them when requested (provide troops) so that an independent jury can hear the case (Hague). I do not break into the home of my neighbor (invade), tie him up (arrest), force his wife and children, who probably have been hurt by him, to determine his punishment (try for war crimes in home country, and then have his wife kill him while singing that she's going to be sleeping with his rival (execution of Saddam).
How can a government expect its population to behave like adults when it seems to be utterly incapable of doing so itself? - boxapizza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Rodzirra
Damn that was well said! - billoday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I will not deny that socialized healthcare is a flawed system, I do think it is better than our system we have right now. I went 2 years without insurance and for the most part got very lucky. I'm also blessed to have a doctor in the family, so my personal experiences are different than most who didn't have healthcare. My family member (the doctor) has a practice, so he along with his partners is responsible for setting prices. They all do fairly well, and they all do expert-level consulting on the side. Making a large amount of cash from the practice isn't important to any of them, more 75% of their income comes from the consulting work (now I gotta get me some of that).
Now, when an insurance company approaches them to put them in the network, the insurance company has a number of restrictions they need to place on things in order for there to be some incentive to sign up.
So, let's try to figure out some numbers here (WARNING - these numbers are for illustrative purposes only, do not assume these numbers are legit beyond that):
Cost to Office per Patient (wages, equipment, malpractice insurance, etc.): $15
Profit Built In To Cost: $10
Total Cost per Visit (to the Patient): $25
Hardly seems like a big deal, right? Well, now Blue Cross Blue Shield wants you in their network (realistically, you want to be in theirs) and they approach with a contract. The contract has a clause that says in effect: "By joining the BCBS family, you get access to x number of new potential patients. In return for this access, we expect to be billed half of what you charge a patient."
Now, all of a sudden each patient that is using BCBS is only being charged $12.50 per visit, which means you're losing money. Operating a service job at a loss is the quickest way to Chapter 11 anyone has seen (aside from being Enron). So, you bump up the uninsured fee to $50 so that you can still operate, and most of your patients have insurance anyway. Now, Harvard Pilgrim Insurance approaches you...
What ends up happening in private healthcare is that the doctors have relatively fixed costs; they can't afford to eat too much money from the fees they actually collect. The insurance companies can and do force practices to adopt fee systems that are artificially inflated.
Now, a few years ago, I was in Europe and got really sick. I had go to a doctor abroad just so that I could move around. The doctor was very effective and made a correct diagnosis (again, I have a doctor in the family; second opinions are important). Total cost to me, a foreigner with no insurance effective in the country, 15 Euro.
So, if socialized healthcare has its flaws (and it does), at least the flaws are picked up by the government (who promptly makes up for it by 1) running a deficit and 2) raising taxes) and not the individual (who just won't get treated until it becomes a matter a doctor going against the Hippocratic Oath - which I find awesome that I actually get to mention in this thread).
Sorry about the long comment, but I think most people don't realize how the insurance companies work on the doctor's end... -
Show 51 - 100 of 117 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is