Well, "no idea" is a bit extreme.  Ron Paul was one of the few who voted against the war resolution.  One of the few who basically called it straight-up illegal to throw the power to call for war into the President's hands.  And the man's frequently taken to task by the left for being an isolationalist.  I have little doubt he'd want to get us out halfway through his inauguration speech.  "My fellow Americans... sorry, I have to take care of something first..."

However, would that be a good thing?  We broke Iraq.  We owe it to them to fix it.  That's no easy thing, although we have made some strides over all these long tortuous years.  For example, their constitution grants universal health care.  Isn't that awesome?

But I have, to date, sent 3 emails giving Obama hell for not getting us out of there.

Somewhere in the White House Barack Obama's balckberry pings -- announcing a new e-mail from Jodi Moisan demanding the war in Iraq end.  President Obama rises from his chair.  Straightens his tie and drinks a scotch thinking to himself: "I really thought I had her charmed in Indiana but she won't let go over this Iraq thing.  Next time I won't let touch my ass."

Truly heavy is the head that wears the crown.

No.  It fits logically in the conditional statement I laid out:

If one wishes to operate a hospital in the United States, one can not turn away a patient.

Then, logically, would it also not fit that if one wished to receive healthcare in this country one must buy insurance?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

To answer Geoff's question - what if your insurance won't pay? Then you can, thanks to this bill, easily and affordably switch to another insurance. Free market and all...

And here's Frum pissing on the Republican's hate parade:

http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Good man, that Frum. If he wasn't a Republican, I'd almost think he was human.

I get that people are worked into a froth about this idea of the government forcing people to buy something, but take a second, shower away that froth and look at the facts of what's going on here:

You're being asked to have insurance. You can buy it or not, depending on your situation. But you must have it.

Why? To cover a few areas: One, if everyone is insured, people will no longer have to use the more expensive ER as an urgent care, they will no longer have to go without to the point of needing the ER, the costs of which, in patients who can't pay, were being passed on to to the Taxpayers. This fixed that.

But that's not the real fix - the real reason everyone is being asked to have it? Because with access to insurance being made more affordable and easier to get, and without restrictions to "pre-existing conditions", a person could get wise and say "Screw this - I'm only going to buy insurance when I get sick!" - like calling Geiko AFTER you get into a car accident.

It keeps things honest.

But it's understood that A) MANY people can't afford even the newer cheaper health care, and B) Some people just don't want to be bothered.

Fair Enough - if you are poor, you get, basically, medicaid. That currently existed, but the requirements are more relaxed.

If you don't want to buy it, fine. What happens is this - when you fill out your tax form each April, if you are honest, you check a box detailing that you don't have it, and you pay a fee.

Now, if you'll forgive me, I have to go celebrate.