[Superman]

I thought it was the liberals who were pessimistic. We're suggesting that the technology and the resources are available for pretty much everyone to have darned good medical care. Not ridiculous, but very good medical care. The doctor and phlebotomist had the time for the procedures necessary for Gary's physical exam. That's not the problem. The problem is the $1000 price tag. I am a liberal and I envision good quality health care for every American, at costs we can bear. One of my conservative friends earlier lamented the notion that Magic Johnson might, due to his great wealth, be able to buy (and tie up) medical resources. So, tell me again, who is optimistic and who is pessimistic, and while you're at it also tell me who takes the position that wealth and money should not determine who gets the needed health services?

This morning on NPR I heard about a question under consideration by the AMA. A doctor wants the AMA to opine that it is not unethical for him to refuse to treat medical malpractice attorneys and their families. Apparently, malpractice insurance is solely responsible for certain doctors being unable to provide certain services in certain areas. A ski resort was mentioned wherein the physician cannot afford the malpractice insurance in order to perform certain head injury procedures, for example.

So, we've got profiteering by pharmaceutical companies and by many other for-profit health care corporations (who can blame them....it's only human health we're talking about), we've got opportunism by the legal community...... The resources are there. We can feed the world, and we can provide basic medical care to all Americans. right now, we are looking at the potential for world peace. Yes, I know about terrorism. Shut up for a moment about that. We have the means and the opportunity....the choice....to bring about world peace.

Yeah, I'm one of those pathetic, dark, critical, morose liberals. And very confused.