Why are people so keen on gov't run healthcare again?
 

The government can't even handle Social Security and Medicare, which are targeted at a relatively small portion of the nation's population, yet most of you Obama supporters are probably delighted that we'll likely have some form of national healthcare coverage before the end of Obama's first term.

Barring a return to Pre-Reagan tax levels (Top marginal rate was like 70 percent), I just don't see the shit happening feasibly and even then it's a stretch 'cause all you'll be doing is punishing achievement. How many of you, if you ever become successful will want to pay 70 percent of your income to the federal government? And we're not even talking state, county, and muncipal taxes like some of you in NY or Cali pay. If we're in debt NOW, what makes you think we're gonna get out of the shit in the future?

Shit is funny as fuck to me.

Because I can't afford the healthcare I need.

HOW CAN WE PAY FOR THIS

UM WE COULD RAISE TAXES ON THE OBSCENELY WEALTHY

WHAT, AND PUNISH THEM?!?!?

I'm not sure where the official line for "successful" is but crying about being "punished" if you make more than 100K after-tax does nothing to earn anybody's sympathy.

BUT THEN NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY MOTIVATION TO WORK HARD!!

Remember, kids; nobody works for any reason other than greed, the same way the only reason we aren't all murderers is because of Christian Ethics.

(It should be pointed out that 2037 is the year that 2007 babies (the largest baby boom since WW2) hit their prime earning years but let's panic anyway)

So you feel it's prudent to force someone else to pay for you?

He probably feels it is significantly more prudent than dying.

Like education, health care should be provided to the masses, by the masses. It is a kind of important thing for the populace.

Ok, but let's take a look at this government's track record...

The Department of Education has been an abysmal failure if it's goal was to increase the academic performance of American students.

Medicare and Social Security are going to become insolvent in the next 20 years.

So then the question has to be asked: Is it responsible for us to expand government control over even more aspects of American life when it has failed dismally in practically every thing it has ever done on this level?

You say it's important that healthcare should be provided by 'the masses', but when the agent of the masses, the government, is largely incompetent in providing it at a satisfactory level and has problems funding it, why should we allow them to expand their scope and reach?

That's the logic I'm having trouble wrapping my head around.

I'm against all of these programs in principle, but even stepping back from my ideology, I'm seeing that they can't execute properly.

What is so scary about publicly funded healthcare anyway? I've never understood why Americans are so afraid of healing their sick.

See, that's a false premise. You think the main objection to socialized medicine is that people don't want poor people to be able to get healthcare when no one has ever said that.

People who oppose a single-payer healthcare system in the United States are proponents of federalism and believe that the federal government should interfere in the lives of its citizens as little as possible. When you control someone's health care, you effectively control their life because you can then withhold that health care for whatever reason you choose, whether it be because you have personal habits the government deems 'irresponsible' or some other undisclosed reason.

People who oppose government-funded health care have an issue with the government's past track record in these over-arching social programs - that is, they don't work very well. They disagree with the very premise that you give benefits to one segment of the population at the expense of another.

That's a far cry from 'Americans don't want to heal their sick'

The government cannot do things efficiently because there are Republicans in it.

No, no. Hear me out.

It is the Republican philosophical position to seek out "small government". In order to garner support for this position, they have to demonstrate that government is inefficient and corrupt. What is the best way to make the government appear inefficient and corrupt?

Be inefficient and corrupt yourself, and then become part of the government.

It is in the best interest of the Republican party's long-term policy goals to make every government agency other than the military look thoroughly bumbling and stupid.

There are dozens of examples in the wider world of government-run health services operating at a reasonable level of efficiency and solvency, so clearly the idea itself isn't intrinsically infeasible. There is something about OUR government that makes it seem implausible, and that something is a great plurality of rednecks with significantly more authority than they deserve.

Because it might keep THE MAN™ down by knocking him down a peg with taxes.

Join Britain! Become hideously underfunded and lacking in actual medical staff!

I recall a comment Shin made just recently about how you can't schedule appointments in the UK anymore in order to avoid months long wait-lists. Can you provide concrete examples of efficient government run health programs? I hear a lot about selective or slow service. It does not make me comfortable.

Generally Britain is excellent when it comes to emergency situations, as in if you go to A&E they will be able to treat you appropriately. However, when it comes to other issues that are not so easily resolved, there are humongous waiting lists. I'm sure Sian has commented on this also. If you are suffering from something which does not require immediate (and I do mean immediate) service, you can be waiting for up to a year (in my experience) for proper service.

Yeah if you already have decent healthcare the prospect of a single-payer system reducing your quality of care becomes worrying. It also happens that a majority of Americans already have good health coverage, which is a significant reason for political opposition to single-payer, and the exact reason that single-payer healthcare reform is not on the table and won't be perhaps for decades, rendering the point of this thread utterly moot.

Then again, millions of blacks die prematurely from cardiovascular disease, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, etc, in rates far exceeding that of whites because they have poor healthcare coverage or no healthcare coverage at all. Night Phoenix himself had a crisis of faith in our corporatist healthcare system when he lost his job and the health insurance that was attached to it. So unemployment spooks a nigga, but now that he's back on the horse his new job is just going to last forever and he'll never have to worry about health coverage again.

Canada is much the same way as Britain. The biggest problem is finding enough doctors who are willing to work here instead of south of the border where they can make enough money to buy 3 houses and 5 cars. It is gradually getting better, though. I remember hearing that Canada has started training people from poorer countries and letting them work in the Canadian healthcare system, where the work is plentiful and help is needed.

Also, the claim that doctors in public healthcare systems don't make enough money is an outright lie. Doctors here make enough money to live well - not enough to own 3 homes, but enough money to live quite comfortably.

There's no reason that a gov't-funded system needs to be the only game in town, you can have a single-payer system and and the clusterfuck of a private system we have now. That way if you have a shitload of money and you absolutely need an appointment today!!! you will have the option.

The idea that taxpayer-funded healthcare would immediately outlaw corporate healthcare is one of those hilarious bogeymen that I can only assume got its start in a talking points newsletter.

The UK provides general practice doctors just fine. It's the special services that take forever.

So, I mean. I'd rather wait for special services and get a GP with no problem for free than to go bankrupt if I have an emergency and have to go the ER.

Well, it's not free, it's just that the expense is distributed. Don't give anyone an opportunity to whine about IT'S NOT FREE I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT WITH 70% OF MY 7 MILLION A YEAR YOU ASSHOLE WHY IS THIS GOVERNMENT BLEEDING ME DRY

So lemme see if I understand your argument correctly...

Because at some point in the future, I may lose my job and the health insurance that comes along with it, I should therefore be supportive of a socialist health care system even though I'm not confident in the abilities of the federal government to adequately fund it when it can't even make Social Security and Medicare solvent?

Is that your argument?

There's the rub. GP's appointments are easy to get if you have a general complaint. However, if you require specialist attention it can take a very long time to get the appointment you need. I myself had to wait nearly a year to address heart problems. I'm not familiar with American healthcare proceedures, but I'm guessing if I had the right insurance over there I could have resolved my issues much sooner.

Well Obama's proposed a tax hike on cigarettes to help finance the new programs, so more to the point the government is bleeding you dry and everybody else who smokes (poor people).

Additional Spam:
Well it's not just my argument, it's the argument of every black man who can't get medical insurance.

An underfunded system is still better than NO system, and NO system is what people with no insurance have.

Your position is, essentially, that we shouldn't bother paying to give soldiers helmets since the helmets might not always be effective at saving their lives.

I mean, look at that guy. Got shot in the kidneys. Why did my tax dollars go to these useless helmets

tea party ahoy

See, that argument makes no sense at all - not the part about wanting health care coverage, because everyone naturally wants that. It's the fact that the government can't handle what it has on its plate now, so adding a full-fledged health care plan to the billet is sure to be an abysmal failure.

Can we get a filter on the word "socialist" until people learn what it means? I suggest either "FANTASTIC" or "SWEDISH"

I am skeptical, really. What sort of heart trouble was it? If it was something you were born with, the majority of insurers would either refuse to cover you entirely or else refuse to cover treatment of the heart condition on the basis that it was "pre-existing".

Okay looking at your journal it looks like it maybe had something to do with your drinking, so you would have been up the river on that one too.

Well that's the thing, if you paid a BUPA subscription or whatever, you'd get seen for any ailment within weeks. If you choose to pay for healthcare in Britain, you get much better service. On the flip side, should you choose not to pay you wait a bit longer but, they'll try really hard not to let you die and nobody is ever refused healthcare because they can't afford it.

Our health service is incredible and I'll hear nothing said against it.

If your medicare thing is running low on cash, why not divert some funds from your monstrous defence budget? Sure the lack of funding there might lead to a few more deaths of military personel but you'd make up for that by saving more poor, sick people and military people volunteer to get shot at, poor people don't volunteer to catch life-threatening illnesses.

He also said this recently:

So I mean, there is the whole concept of not having to pay hundreds of dollars a month for medicine that keeps you alive. Which happens in the US, a lot, and to people who have good health insurance.

The argument I hear frequently with regards to this is that medicine costs so much for first world countries because they can afford it, primarily, and to pay for the cost of R&D. And that, in addition, it costs so much more for us because the rest of the first world has single payer health insurance and force pharmaceuticals to charge only a certain amount.

Am I a little pissed off that my hard-earned money, both coming from my health insurance and from out-of-pocket when I need pharmaceuticals, is subsidizing the rest of the world's pill habits? Yeah, I am. Fuck you faggots.

Because providing for the common defense is the primary function of the federal government. You don't compromise the nation's defense to fund a program that's naturally insolvent by design.

But let me humor you - we have for ease of math's sake, a 500 billion dollar defense budget. How much do you cut from the Department of Defense to bolster social programs? 10%? 20%? 50%? Give me a percentage that you feel is appropriate to cut our nation's defense by.

I also wonder if Pang has caught on to the fact that he's been on my ignore list for months and I can't see shit he posts. I'm fairly sure he's been replying to me the entire thread. *shrugs*

The total 2009 budget for defense-related expenditures is about 1 trillion dollars. I think 10% of that would buy quite a bit of medicine, yeah.

Or do you think $900 billion is inadequate for our defense?

(who am I kidding, any number I could shoot out would be considered "inadequate" by the kind of person who labels anything he doesn't like as "socialism")

$900B is about $3000 for every single person in the country, or about $300K for each member of the military. I am fairly skeptical that this is an inadequate sum when dedicated to the purpose of blowing up random assholes in the desert.

Maybe the defense spending budget should be brought down to $500b. That'll be a ton of money left over to pay off all those IOUs we wrote for SS, and bulk back up our civil services so people ain't driving over crumbling bridges no more.

Of course that means that the terrorists win but I don't really care what some asshole half a world away thinks while he's busy throwing acid over women because they wouldn't marry him. I got my own to take care of.

The more I read this thread, the more I realize what a paranoid schitzophrenic country the United States really is.

(A trillion dollars and apparently, we can't give the soldiers decent gear.)

Haha, the truth is that the military was massively incompetent under Republican administration as well as all other branches of government.

As a matter of trends, the military has also been a huge money sink as we wasted billions on carrier groups that could be sunk by Chinese diesel submarines, and stealth fighters that were designed to fight Russian 4th generation aircraft that they can't produce.

In fairness - any ship can be sunk, Brady. It's not like we have some revolutionary Adamantium plating with which we can armor our warships with (which, if we did, would be fucking awesome). However, just because a diesel submarine is capable of killing a carrier doesn't mean that we wasted money on carrier groups. Know why? Because the purpose of the carrier group is to protect the carrier - that's why you have dedicated ASW frigates and a pair of 688 Los Angeles-class subs protecting the ship from anti-submarine threats.

Besides, you can't project force with a frigate and destroyer navy. You can with aircraft carriers, which is why we have them.

And some of the cuts they're making to the defense budget I really don't have a problem with - we don't need all the F-22s the Air Force wants because no one challenges us in the air.

The more I think about it, some of our defense spending does need to be trimmed, if only to move us away from building up an even more formidable "I'm going to be fighting an opponent with tank divisions and full air wings" capability to fighting a "I'm going to be fighting guys who are highly mobile and have no intention on waiting around for a US tank regiment to run me over" capability.

If some of that savings can be funnelled into making Medicare and SS solvent, cool.

One of the few things that kept the US from invading Iran were those wargames that demonstrated their Sunfire missiles would turn US carrier groups into billion dollar coffins. There is no defense against anti-ship missile systems, and AEGIS can be easily overwhelmed. The days of the surface navy have been over since the 50's.

It could be possible to create a low-cost fleet of WW2-esque escort carriers offloading CAS and drone aircraft into crisis zones. There's not a country in the world that would necessitate a navy air presence without a neighboring country perfectly willing to lease air bases to the US for some sweet moolah.

This is at least one policy decision everybody should agree upon. There's no point in developing high technology weapons to fight another high technology military that doesn't exist.

:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:( Glad I misread that... Not one for beating a dead horse, but I seriously saw it like that.

Well, whittling down on the military is all fine and dandy, but we'd have to have all the troops (or most) that are off in between Iraq & a Hard Place as well as Afghani-land back over here. Any attempt to cut back on defense funding would get mauled by Republicans and some Dems because OMG LETTING THE TERRACES WIN.

As bitching as homing bullets and rayguns are, there isn't much point in them at present :( But once we are invaded by aliens, I will be going WHYYYYY :mad:

I'm well aware of that exercise - the OPFOR commander actually got mad because the Admirals and Generals running the op made them start over because the OPFOR was a little too successful for their liking.

And you're wrong - AEGIS is a defense against anti-ship missile systems. The main problem with the SS-N-2 Sunburn or the Silkworm missile is that it's hypersonic, which means that the time to engage it with the SM-2 and SM-3 missiles is dramatically cut down.

Regardless - a ship is a fool to fight a fort. That's always been a linchpin of naval warfare.

While this plays right into the "build up for build up's sake" argument, I feel I must throw out a mention of China's J-XX programme as a possible F-22 competitor in the near future, provided it turns out to be the proper Air-Superiority fighter everyone thinks it's gonna be. (The J-10 serves a fine role and certainly doesn't need a total replacement 7 years in.)

Also the USAF recently put a stop to ordering more Raptors, didn't they? I think the orders ceased at just under 200?. Not saying more are needed but that there are shifts towards potential competing aircraft designs.

If anything, considering who you're fighting, those Lightning IIs would probably be a better way to spend cash if you're into that whole look at my new shiny things that blow you up good mentality.

Don't really have anything to add beyond what Pang's saying (other than props), but for the curious, the above post is tackled in book form: The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank (the author of "What's the Matter With Kansas?").

I enjoyed it.

The universal health care program being talked about is not single-payer coverage. That's what got all those activists riled up and thrown out of the Congressional hearings. The insurance lobby simply has too much clout to allow such a sane solution to our problems. What makes it cost efficient on our end makes it unprofitable on behalf of the health insurance corporations. The difference between countries with universal health care and America is the profit margin. Any health care system (universal or otherwise) setup to protect the profit margin will not be cost efficient. Which isn't all that different then the current dysfunctional state of Medicare.

Help! I've been infected by socialism! Any moment now Gorbachev will come crashing through my window to take my capitalist virtue away from me by force.

The Social Security fund doesn't hold IOUs. They hold US Treasury bonds that pay interest. Instead of getting put into the washing machine and being ruined because the government forgot to take it out of their pants. This is good for a variety of other reasons. It keeps interest rates and inflation low. It also creates a domestic market for government debt so foreigners can't use their financial position to strangle government policy. Oh, and there's that whole full faith and credit of the United States government backing them up.......

I've yet to see any evidence that Social Security is in any solvency crisis. It's just the usual Cato think-tank bullshit.

NP:

Aren't you black and a "rapper" (or whatever it is you kids call being a bum these days), therefore doubly likely to benefit from universal health-care?

It's like the same post Brady already made, but with the Douche and Wrong turned up to 300%.

Sir, do you have a goatee? Can you point me to the portal via which you entered our universe from your evil-aligned home?

Aren't you (sniffs disdainfully) a 'rapper' (finger quotes)

He simply hasn't the time to take seriously the antics of those who "get jiggy with it".

Aren't you white and a "posh Concert Hall groupie" (or whatever it is you kids call being cake-eating composer snob these days) and likely to benefit a from a little "SHUT THE FUCK UP"?

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, I'm an emcee (and I'll rhyme circles around 90% of niggas you can put up against me), but I'm also college educated, so calling me a bum is the furthest you can get from the truth. Understand this, you arrogant bastard: I'm ten times the musician you'll ever be and just because I'm black and a 'rapper' as you put it doesn't mean I would want to or have to support this socialist bullshit the left is peddling.

This is why the best solution to ensure things work better in the future would be to reinstate the 3/5 Compromise, but apply it so that those who clearly have no rights to wield control be permanently reduced in influence.

Either that or allow enfranchisement only after proof of competency in civics. Having the nation being led by people who don't know what they're doing for more than half the time is not conducive to a good and just republic.

I was just joking. I guess it was a pretty bad (and racist) joke. Sorry?

I am not sure I buy this. "Don't know what they're doing" is a bit of a slippery slope, isn't it? Who decides what people should know?

People are entitled to their views and freedoms on both parts of the spectrum.

If someone wants to vote for a canditate because of their hair or religion, what is it to you? If the problem is a lack of education, perhaps the ball is on your court to educate. It isn't as if rural areas asked to be poor or underfunded -- there are specific historical conditions that led to this. You wouldn't blame a kid who never went to school for not being able to write; why would you blame people from rural areas with "subpar" education for not having their priorities straight?

i dont understand

well see the argument is

Yes lets just make our system like canadas or france where people get rationcare. Oh and people who want to extend their life as long as possible DON't get needed care.

I sure hope Obama does not get the chance to push any socialized health care system thru to law.

We could use a system where the goverment can give us emergency insurance. For them times like you're in a car accident or an emergency comes up.

Fact is not every one is going to have top of the line health insurance, people can get what they can pay for. I agree the goverment should have oversight to what insurance companies can charge but I seriously do not want the goverment providing health care to people in this country illegally.

At this point any one can get emergency care at any hospital as its against the law to turn them away but if the goverment provides health innsurace for every one its not only going to raise taxes on the rich but on the middle class as well. People are fools to believe their taxes won't be raised and stay raised to provide care for people who don't have it.

D-

Extravagant claim, no sources cited

see me after class

You will lose your privacy. The government and their people will have easy access to all your medical records. The people are slowly losing their privacy and their freedom. So much for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Our country will turn into... get in line... and they will tell you where to go. The continue to ... live line or ... the die line.

Your conception of privacy is rather laughable in the internet age where your identity is pretty much a google search away, spare me the paranoia when the data mining companies and insurances got us all by the balls already!

While I can sort of understand the argument from the efficiency stand point, although I don't agree with it, since I think the profit motive go against the promotion of general wellness which is the point of such endeavor (health insurance), but their argument is generally understandable.

This sort of appeal to emotion with nebulous innuendos is exactly the sort of bullshit that is muddy up debate. Nativist and their hang up on the Big Bad Government (TM), when the "private enterprises" can be just as bad, worse, there really isn't any checks on those entities from collecting all sorts of information on us.

But then, I can't blame the crazies for losing faith in the political processes that is design to hold the government accountable when we did not just vote out of power the party and president that promoted domestic spying and torture, right? oh wait.

Privacy is your concern? I don't know what makes you think anything will significantly change.

The rich already pay over 70% of the taxes. The people DO NOT want obamacare, Obama and his pack od czars want obama care, oh and all the progressive libs.

It won't happen, should it happen those in Washington who voted for it will be voted out of office... Simple. Obama also won't win in 2012 unless he actually starts improving the situation

How is that an 'over-simplification', kind sir? The people the government considers rich pays the vast majority of taxes, so what is inaccurate, distorted, or misleading about the statement this 'JewishNegroe' made?

It really isn't a gross 'over-simplifacation' I have to agree. Over 70% of what the government considers rich DO pay the taxes.

I mean back when I graduated high school, I was denied government loans and grants because my single mother was WAAAAAAAAAAY too wealthy for them to consider helping me further my education.

So in closing, anyone who makes around 25k a year, such as my mother, is a rich person here in America, and thus over 70% of America IS rich...at least everyone who opposes this healthcare reform seems to think.

My bet is you didn't fill in some paperwork correctly.

Or your father was wealthy and they assumed he would help support your education.

My bet is that Grail isn't be careful in what he's saying.

My two parents had a combined income of $45k while I was going to college. I was perfectly able to get loans. Not enough to cover the entire cost of college, but it got me most of the way there.

I was offered stafford loans as well which had to be paid back immediately. I did not take those. I wasn't handed any grants, but like RR suggested I had no idea how to apply for them so I didn't.

I think those are actually two very different statements. O.o;; Although I guess the definition of rich or wealthy is probably a moving target here.

According to the IRS, ~%80 of all income tax revenue has been supplied by the top %25 percentile of citizens in the past decade(looking at Adjusted Gross Income). The top %25 has been defined as anyone who earns at or above ~55k to 65k. That's a more than reasonable wage(for most places in the U.S.), though obviously not "filthy stinking rich."
Its still richer than %75 of the rest of the population.

What does this mean? That the top 25% of earners make BETWEEN $55k and $65k? Or does it mean that the top 25% starts between $55k and $65k, and you're just not sure which it is?

About a decade ago, the top 25% was defined as someone who makes 55k or more. Now the top 25% is defined as someone who makes about 65k or more a year. There is a gradual slope between the two points for all the intervening years that I believe should match closely with inflation rates.

Okay that makes sense.

How is it that the richest country on Earth cannot have a very moderate provision of healthcare (which would probably strengthen their economy) when it can spend upwards of $1 trillion on such silly projects as Iraq and missile defence?

Because they spend 1 trillion on military. You sort of answered that yourself.

It's not like the US is fiscally responsible anyhow. You might as well follow the rest of the civilised industrial world and begin providing for your citizens.

Perhaps, along the way you can cancel some stupid projects like a moon base built by NASA alone, a very silly missile defence shield ($12 billion in 2009) and, perhaps giant flying lasers.

Same here.

What's funny to me is how the arguments against health care reform are that it will turn the current health care system into the current health care system.

Already we're paying more per person for health care than any other country so we're already getting screwed financially, and already major decisions are made by some numbnuts bureaucrat with no medical knowledge.

What about a combined system, similar to Japan, but with our own twist?

I believe that some health-care is better than no health-care. And, socialized medicine doesn't mean private healthcare has to disappear. In fact, it'd probably be the most intelligent thing to have a private infrastructure, with a government-run HMO (The V.A. would be an example of this). Not that difficult, it's basically the samething I do when I'm in someplace without a military hospital.

We could pay for it by instituting a flat rate income tax (say 10%?) that cannot be adjusted or deducted. The rich don't pay that much in tax, because there are plenty of ways to classify "income" and not all of them are pay-roll, in fact, most of them aren't.

So this gloom and doom scenario for public healthcare seems completely bogus. HMOs are the real culprit, anyway, they've steadily driven up (and I mean exponentially ballooned) the cost of private healthcare since the Nixon era.

So - now that this reform bill is going to make it through the Senate more than likely - is virtually anyone satisfied with it? To me, this bill honestly makes no sense.From the WSJ:

I don't think it's possible one way or another to be satisfied with this bill, as it's 2,700 pages long and I don't think anyone can claim, with the exception of maybe 4 or 5 lawmakers, to have read the bill in its entirety.

Stiill, there are a few good things with the bill. For one, the CBO has said that it's more than deficit-neutral. Most Americans are rightfully worried about the soaring cost of the national debt, and how a trillion dollar medicare reform bill will only add to that. I think that concern is largely moot by now. Whether you agree or not with the way the government is keeping it neutral (basically by increasing taxes on the wealthy) is another story altogether, as some of the posts in this thread show.

Second, the bill targets middle-income Americans, not just people who can't afford insurance in general. Although everyone is required by law now to have health insurance, the government is offering subsidies to middle-income Americans to help pay for their insurance. This is definately a big step from the status-quo. It's far from perfect (having a public option competing with the private sector would probably have been better in keeping costs down) but it's a starting point.

Overall, therefore, although the bill's not perfect (it's a compromise bill like every other bill in parliament, what do you expect?) it's definately a step in the right direction and offers struggling families a bit more hope than they had before.

I just don't get it, perhaps a cultural bias: Why are American so keen to pay large fees to unaccountable insurance companies and be utterly dependent on employers seeking to maximise profits? you're still paying taxes, but now you taxes are subsidising corporations which are beyond reproach.

GOVT OUTTA MY HELTHCARE

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_yaf75bpoW_...dneck-sign.jpg

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I don't see what your trying to say, Deni. :rolleyes:

Obviously he's trying to point out that some Americans cannot spell 'morons' properly.

It's cool he fixed it.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b1...tabrianjpg.png

::WRONG::

Canada has it wrong.
USA has it wrong.

It doesn't take a genius to realize the answer lies somewhere in between these two ridiculous extremes.

It does, however, take a genius to elaborate on a point he has made.

Thank god we had what is CLEARLY not a genius here to explain it.