Comment by Joseph de St.Aubin on Saturday, Nov 3 at 07:06 AM

I am comferted greatly by the fact that McCain will never be president of the u.s.. This man is a joke. 1) Not everyone can be an educated idea producer (ideas being the only thing we still manufactur). 14 million ilegal imogrints, that is ther ubiquidus removal, will leve saficiant room for those u.s. sitizens that do not posese great intolectual creativaty to retain a place in the "market place" at a fair and resonable price. 2) Repoblicans in general and Arizonian repoblincans in paticuler will never, on mass, fergive you or ferget your actions in federalizing the u.s. senate. Spacifacly sueing your own state to get rid of term limets, enacted by the sitizens of Arizona! He stood ther with Kenedy and told the listening aoudiance at the time( Arizona) that seneters were not representatives of ther state but rather of the senate itself, elected by the state. Basicaly urinating on the constatution and the vary principles of representative government. Its worth noting that few people believe such a repose would stand up to our curent supreem court. Fergive my biligerance, I can not tell you how much I hate Jhon McCane for the whole supreem court term limets thing...

Comment by Ben Andrews on Wednesday, Aug 29 at 07:13 PM

SENATOR McCain's dismissal of the Canadian and English type single-payer health care systems is just the same old political sophistry unless he is willing to offer something other than just tinkering with the status quo. HIS remarks and the remarks of other politicians who advocate mere band-aids for the present system are not worth discussing. BUT if a politician is willing to put forth a plan for a radical restructuring of our current market-driven system then it might be worth discussing if only to improve the design of any single-payer government-run plan that might be implemented. I BELIEVE that there are some "real facts" about single-payer government-run healthcare systems that should be discussed. BUT if the "free marketers" really want to preserve the resource allocation efficiency, the technological innovation, and the commercial research progress advantages of a market driven system they'd better start the discussion now. ANY discussion of restructuring the current market-driven system must confront the free-rider problem, the administrative costs inefficiencies problem, and most importantly the affordability problem. I DON'T think the free-marketers are up to the task. AND the large medical insurance companies don't want such a discussion. THEY like the status quo "thank you very much". ALSO, we need to discuss what to say to all of those people that currently have a good medical insurance plan and are scared to death that any "new" or "radically reformed" system will ruin their current plan with one-size-fits-all regulations. THEREFORE to compensate for some of the long-term problems of a single-payer system we must devise the complementary government programs necessary to provide an adequate rate of technological innovation (through more research) and an adequate supply of medical service providers (through expanded education and/or immigration programs). WE ARE also going to have to discuss how much we are going to pay the large medical insurance companies to quietly go out of business. THAT will certainly be the bare minimum political price to be paid so that Congress will be able to pass the necessary legislation for a single-payer system. WE MUST be alert that we don't end up with a "new" single-payer plan run by the same inefficient insurance companies that run our current system. BECAUSE then we might end up with an oligopoly (or even a monopoly) that has a "cost-plus" government contract monitored by some "heck-of-a-job" administrator with no real qualifications for the job. THAT would be the "worst of both worlds"!

Comment by Ben Andrews on Saturday, Aug 25 at 03:57 PM

SENATOR McCain, I AM going to ask a question which you and Charlie Rose did not discuss (AS THE Bush Administration had not yet begun its public rewriting of the history of Indo-China). I APOLOGIZE in advance for this. I AM doing this partly because I would like to know if you will surprise me with your answer, BUT also as an introduction to an "additional political comment". (ANOTHER website apparently has a 3 comment limit per person per web page and therefore has not posted this "additional political comment" that follows my "question/comment" to you.) ------------------------------------------- QUESTION/COMMENT: SENATOR McCain, do you think that the "killing fields" genocide in Cambodia (1977-1979) would have only happened in the wake of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam (1969-1975). OR DO you think that U.S. air attacks on and invasions of Cambodian territory from 1966-1970 (including the massive "secret bombing raids" by U.S. B-52s in 1969) almost made it inevitable that something bad would ultimately happen in Cambodia. PRINCE Norodom Sihanouk the long reigning Cambodian head of state had held the country together and averted civil war with fragile coalition governments until he was overthrown by anti-Communist General Lon Nol in 1970. AT THE end of a long civil struggle the Cambodian Communist Party (the Khmer Rouge) finally ousted General Lon Nol in 1975. PRINCE Sihanouk again briefly becomes the compromise head of state, but is unable to prevent civil strife among the various factions of the Khmer Rouge and resigns in 1976. POL Pot becomes the leader of the Cambodian Communist Party in 1977. IN 1979 THE Vietnamese Communist military forces seized the capital of Cambodia in order to oust the Pol Pot Communist regime in Phnom Penh. THIS Vietnamese military invasion of Cambodia brought an end to the "Killing Field" genocide. THOUSANDS of Cambodians fled to Thailand. THE Vietnamese Communists and the Khmer Rouge were bitter enemies even though they were both Communist. THIS timeline of events seems to support the later conclusion that our intermittent military interventions in Cambodia (1966-1970) set in motion a downward spiral of disastrous political events in Cambodia. OR AT least this timeline would seem to free the U.S. withdrawal from blame for what may (or may not) have been inevitable (UNLESS the alternative was to stay in Vietnam indefinitely in order to prevent humanitarian calamities in the whole Indo-China region). ----------------------------------------------- ADDITIONAL POLITICAL COMMENT: THE Bush Administration's attempt to rewrite the history of Vietnam to make it look as if the only thing that caused "the killing fields" of Cambodia was the U.S. pullout from Vietnam is a political maneuver that has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it. ONE of the "fingerprints" is that Tony Blankly (Editorial page editor Washington Times, and McLaughlin Group regular panelist) floated a trial balloon for this Bush administration sophistry on a recent McLaughlin Group broadcast. THE point of this new Vietnam War mythology is not only to keep the Republican "base" in a blood fever, but also to advance a calculated perversion of history that will focus blame on the next Democratic President and/or on the next Democratic Presidential nominee for all of the humanitarian consequences after the U.S. begins its exit from Iraq. IT MIGHT work! "MY DADDY used to say '"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and you can fool all the people some of the time, and them's pretty good odds'"!" - (Bret Maverick {actor James Garner}, a cowboy poker player and hero of the 1950's TV western, "Maverick") THEN Karl is probably going to gin up the old "we were stabbed in the back" story (which has a pretty infamous pedigree including Adolf Hitler's book "Mein Kampf"). ROVE may have some "swift boater" general assert that the Democrats prevented a military victory in Iraq just like they did in Vietnam. NOW we know the reason why this administration spent so little time on an exit strategy for Iraq -- Karl Rove already had one. HIS plan is this: WHEN the voter's elect a Democratic President to get us out of Iraq, the Republican's can blame the Democrats for all of the diplomatic and economic fall-out plus any and all the humanitarian calamities that happen anywhere in the Middle-East during and after the U.S. exit. THE Democrats will have a one-term presidency because of all of the problems that the Bush Administration created (and the other problems they neglected), and then the Republicans will be back in business. THE "surge" blends beautifully into this scenario because it may allow the Bush Admin to avoid withdrawing any troops at all during George Bush's complete Presidential term. IF BUSH is not in office at the time of our exit from Iraq then he can plausibly assert that he did not lose the Iraq War his successor did. ALL Bush needs to do is to keep a lid on the brewing Iraq civil war (and other assorted humanitarian emergencies) in and around Iraq. THEN when the new Democratic President starts to withdraw troops Iraq explodes into genocidal chaos and other religious and ethnic group pathologies.

Comment by Ben Andrews on Friday, Aug 24 at 09:25 PM

RUSSELL WOOD: I APOLOGIZE for not being clearer in my explanation. "ROLLING UNDERWRITING" is not a part of any single-payer government run medical insurance program. IT IS a method used by private health insurance companies to avoid insuring people when they most need insurance. THEREFORE it is a reason to adopt either a single-payer government run medical insurance program, or a healthcare insurance market restructuring that at the very least bans all underwriting except for would-be "free-riders" trying to game the system. I HOPE this corrects any unintentional confusion in my earlier posts.

Comment by Russell Wood on Friday, Aug 24 at 03:19 PM

Ben Andrews: Thanks for your explanation about 'rolling underwriting'. Very informative. You seem to know your 'stuff' very well. To further the dialogue about the strengths and weaknesses of the 'single payer' health care system. I believe the Canadian 'single payer' health care system does not maintain a 'rolling underwriting' system. Corporations do not seem to be over-burdened. I am wondering if your conclusions about the 'Single Payer' system is accurate with respect to Canada. Part of the reason I'm asking this is to understand Sen. McCain's obvious derision towards Canada's health care system.

Comment by Justice B. Lincoln on Friday, Aug 24 at 12:06 AM

People in Middle Eastern countries hate us, for one thing, because we have a history of befriending, propping up, arming and supporting murderous dictators who acted to our advantage. For years, we propped up the murderous Shah of Iran, he was our boy, every Christmas sending tins of caviar to our journalists, who wrote glowing things about him even as he tortured and murdered his countrymen. No wonder the Persians welcomed the Ayatollah. We also spent years supporting, and weaponizing, the regime of Saddam Hussein when he was waging war against our then archenemies, the Persians under the Ayatollah. Does Senator McCain think the Iraqis have forgotten how we enabled Saddam to stay in power and abuse and murder the citizens of his police state? We continue to prop up our great allies, the Saudi Royal Family, a degenerate monarchy that the Saudi people appear to be sick of. Does McCain think the populations of Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia have forgotten how we befriended their dictators when it suited our purposes (OIL), and the Bush family in particular keeps their business ties with the Saudi Royal family? The people in the Middle East have LOOOOOOOONG memories and they remember those who were tortured or killed under all 3 of those regimes, while the Shah, Saddam, and the Saudi Royal family were the great allies of the United States. Now we claim we only want to HELP the Iraqis "be free" and to stabilize that region. When is this country going to get over the idea that people in other cultures are stupid, have no memory of our past lethal meddling in their governments and have no reason to trust us to now act in their best interests? The Iraqis are a different culture from the Americans but they are not a bunch of ignorant, passive babies to be molded to what we want them to be and they know we were allies of Saddam. The Persians remember we were allies of the Shah, which may be one reason they are now so supportive of a regime that hates us and baits us at every term. Chickens from the 1960s thru 1990s have come home to roost. Based on our behavior in the Middle East, and much of the rest of the world (remember President Allende of Chile?), the Middle East hates us so much because they know that the United States government, and United States corporate interests, always act only in the interests of the United States government and our corporate interests. We are not yet in any way proving we are behaving in the interest of the Iraqi people. The desire of President Bush to push a type of government the Iraqis may not want, or even consider culturally odious, onto Iraq, is gaining us only the contempt of the entire world. Even as our young people are being sent there to die for a cause that is not valued or respected. We deserve better for our soldiers than this exercise in business interests and cynicism; we do not really care about the interests of the Iraqis. The Iraqis remember we were the allies of Saddam, as the Persians remember we were allies of the Shah. People in our government need to grow up and accept responsibility for decades of supporting the dictatorships of the Middle East. We should get out now, now that our original plan to install the criminal Chalabi to act as our latest lackey governing proxy in Iraq and let Iraq sort out their country, even if they wind up, understandably, with a government that is hostile to us, as has happened now in Iran. Remember history or be doomed to repeat it and that is all we had planned for Iraq - more of the past -and now are helplessly watching the Middle East turn against American interference with a vengeance. Sorry they have not yet mind-wiped our past behavior from their memories so that they can childishly trust us now. I actually respect them for not trusting us. I like knowing that the population of other, culturally different countries, are not willing to be stupid puppets and accept whatever we want for them. I'm glad they know arrogance and occupation when they see it. We want them to recognize these evils even as we would recognize them if they were ever imposed from outside upon the United States. That recognition alone is the hope of the world. As far as health care, I am one of the lucky people who lives on SS disability. My income is $623 a month to live on, plus $20 in food stamps, this in the Washington D.C. metropolitan region where you cannot even rent a room in someone's house for $600 a month. The company the State of Virginia has hired to administer my Medicaid, a corporation called Amerigroup, has turned down an appeal from my physician for a prescription for Nexium, the GI drug, he hopes will allow me to avoid having an endoscopy if I respond to it after taking it for 2 months. Amerigroup turned down my doctors appeal to cover my Nexium prescription and if I want to take it now - a seemingly harmless drug that might cure me - to avoid an endoscopy, a common procedure that nevertheless requires anaesthesia and runs a small but real risk of infection or puncturing my esophagus or stomach, which could be fatal - well, I need to be able to pay $359 a month for my Nexium prescription. People who would advise me to seek help from the manufacturers of Nexium, Astra Zeneca, or the various pharma help groups for people who cannot afford their drugs, should know that if you are on Medicaid (and Amerigroup in Virginia is POSING as a Medicaid provider), you are not eligible for these prescription assistance programs to get your drug. So, because of Amerigroup, I cannot get the drug that would likely prevent me from having to endure an endoscopy. The Nexium would cost $359 a month for two months and has been easy for me to tolerate. The endoscopy will cost the citizens of Virginia thousands of dollars in doctor's fees, anaesthesia fees, hospital fees and equipment fees, to say nothing of the discomfort, and risks, it poses to me. Can anyone pretend this is not totally stupid and selfish and dangerous on the part of our government, the drug companies and the insurance companies? My story is simply a probable recurrence of a peptic ulcer that will perhaps bleed out in the future, threatening my life unless it is treated. It is disgusting that the treatment will be determined by the corporate lackeys of Americagroup and not by my gastroenterologist, whom I believe does have my welfare and survival at heart. And I am on the "Amerigroup" version of Medicaid. I am NOT one of the millions in this country who have no insurance coverage for anything at all (although under Amerigroup, I am coming damn close to it). The people of this country have turned on the Iraq war not only because they have recognized it is dangerous, cynical and evil, and killing our troops in bad faith, but because they cannot get coverage for basic health care needs, their children go to schools that are falling apart, they may be caught up in this giant mortgage scam that will cost them their homes, or they continue to work in a job that pays them $10 an hour after putting in 20 years as loyal employees and buying an apartment, or sending their children to college, is still out of their reach, or because working two or three jobs in a family did not save them from having to join the recent tsunami of decent, hardworking people who have had to file for bankruptcy. In the future, as things worsen, and more bridges collapse and New Orleans remains a pit that is not being rebuilt and we will eventually be attacked by the people who REALLY attacked us on 9/11, who were based not in Iraq but Afghanistan, this country will look back on the billions of dollars wasted and the lives of our troops lost in Iraq and be duly enraged, asking "What was that stupid mess all about, while the safety of this country was ignored? While it's citizens could not see doctors, pay their mortgages, worked for slave wages, saw the infrastructure of their cities crumble away, all because of this vanity that is the Bush war in Iraq. Or as many of us have come to think of it "the War in Iraq Because He Tried To Kill My Dad." My father is buried in Arlington. I am not busy trying to beat another country into submission for the death of my father. And Bush's dad is, of this writing, alive and careening around in his cigarette boat. Could we PLEASE next time around elect a President who cares about the people of this country and who does not feel entitled to waste our money and the lives of our military on his personal garbage? Millions of us have suffered miserably under 8 years of this hubris and incompetence, and let us pray for all the dead, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in New Orleans, and in our poorer neighborhoods, & pray somebody out there has learned something profound from all this and will be elected President next time and we will again have representation of the people, by the people, and for the people. They aren't going to have it in Iraq, but we bought into it long ago. We just have to get rid of this administration and brave, but stubborn, old men like Senator McCain who do not realize the suffering in this country means the train for men like him has left the station. The straight talk express can toodle off into the distance, a relic of a hopefully soon by-gone era of stupidity, corruption and bullheadness, that will take decades to set right. I do thank Senator McCain for his very brave and treasured service to his country. He has my gratitude. I pray we get the government in this country we the people really deserve. It was not Bush and it is not the Honorable Senator McCain. Get out of the doorway, Senator, don't block up the hall. There's a battle outside and it's raging....

Comment by Sarah Wong on Thursday, Aug 23 at 05:41 PM

The comment posted by Patrick below is right on the nose. Right now your lack of support is because American people thought that you are in the same team as the Bush administration. You have to stand up and on the attack of the Bush administration and tell the American people to trust you that you can fix the war. Hillary Clinton said if she became president she would end the war. But how??? Senator McCain, you are the most qualified veteran to become the next president of the United States. I hope the nation will rise up and stand behind you that at times of war we need a military man to be the commander-in-chief.

Comment by Jonathan on Thursday, Aug 23 at 02:16 PM

I agree with John L. that Mr. McCain omitted a most important element in his cyberspace offensive against terrorism idea. Mr. McCain fails to recognize that for such a campaign to be effective, the United States needs to act in a way that is consistent with its rhetoric. Whether it is in detaining terrorism suspects indefinitely and without charge in Guantanamo or arranging for suspects to be tortured in secret prisons abroad, recent acts by our government have undermined our credibility on matters such as due process, liberty, and the rule of law. This country doesn't come by moral authority merely by being; we must consistently demonstrate our commitment to liberty, due process, and the rule of law especially in the most difficult of times. I am shocked that Mr. McCain, who still bears the scars of his own torture and who loudly trumpets his political independence, would not have mentioned the restoration of these values as the first element in his PR campaign.

Comment by Shaft on Thursday, Aug 23 at 01:23 AM

Mr. McCain as much as I would like to agree with you about the status of Iraq and the consquences of the long term impact, but you are mistaken in keeping Americans in Iraq for indefinetly. We need a different strategy as things are going bad and are heading toward worse. We need drastic change, may be we can get that drastic change from the young guy name Obama. I am afraid he is the most offsetting candidate we have to bring America back from the unstable swirvel to the far right.

Comment by Mary P. on Wednesday, Aug 22 at 06:19 PM

why are people willing to admire show-boat personalities and ignore the person of greatest integrity, global esperience, diplomacy, trustworthiness? I see no one on the horizon who can compare with his sterling qualities. I may not agree 100% with some of his proposals, but there is a larger issue: he can be trusted to confront the issues with dignity, truth, confidence, and utmost concern for the good of America, not personal gain, power, success. He is a throwback to the statesmen that originally formed and lead this country. Boy, do we need his qualities today!

Comment by Wiley Knight on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 08:09 PM

I thought McCain was the last best hope for a dose of reality in the Republican Party, but he seems to be in the same bubble as Bush. He seems to think that Syria and Iran have no right to be an influence in their own backyards but that we do from 8000 miles away because of our superior Judeo-Christian values. That's going to win Muslim hearts and minds? Oh please. And he still parrots that tired old myth that if we withdraw from Iraq than Al-Quieda (however you spell it) will somehow have the ability to once again mount 9-11 type attacks here which they have not been able to do in six years! So why do the terrorists want to attack us? It's the occupation stupid!

Comment by Ben Andrews on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 06:09 PM

Senator McCain, if the "free marketers" truly value market driven solutions, why don't they design a restructured medical care insurance system that really works. (Shouts of " USA. We're 42nd! USA. We're 42nd! USA. We're 42nd???" go up from the crowd.) If the "free marketers" really want to preserve the resource allocation efficiency, the technological innovation, and the commercial research progress advantages of a market driven system they'd better get going. We can't what for a long-term solution or evolution of this market To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes we're all dead in the long-run (probably because our current healthcare system if we don't do something). At least 41 other medical care systems in the world work better than ours and many of them are single-payer government run systems. (Many types of insurance only achieve economies of scale when they become monopolies.) It is not simply a value judgment to have a dysfunctional market that leaves almost 50 million Americans uninsured, our largest manufacturers crippled in the competition of the global market, the rest of us underinsured for mental health, and all the many other negative market externalities. IT'S JUST INCREDIBLY STUPID! If the "free marketers" ever come up with such a comprehensive market restructuring plan to be effective it would have to solve at least the following problems: the free-rider problem, the administrative costs inefficiencies problem, and the affordability problem. This plan would also have to eliminate the perverse incentive that makes pharmaceutical companies sell all of their products for much higher prices in the U.S. than in the rest of the world (all the while using the superpower of our nation to protect their patents worldwide). That perverse incentive operates because the U.S. lacks any centralized bargaining agent like many other countries do. This forces the pharmaceutical companies to recover a disproportionate amount of their fixed costs to U.S. sales of pharmaceuticals. And finally this plan must reduce commercial interference with and cooptation of government regulatory and public health agencies. I think that the "free marketers" will find that their only possible hope to create a functional market driven health care insurance system is to get the insurance companies out of the business of UNDERWRITING (deciding who gets to be insured at an affordable rate), and make them the bargaining agent/negotiator between the medical care consumers and the medical suppliers. Of course that will require strict regulation of the medical care insurance market at the national level (not at the state level) by an independent public health officer chosen by an independent public health board. (And of course lobbying of this officer and the board would be prohibited.) If this nation can't restructure the its healthcare insurance market then trying to do anything about global warming is a fool's errand. In comparison with global warming (a problem of world-wide, industrial strength, multi-lingual, multicultural complexity) health care market restructuring is a piece of cake. Several other countries have already done it. They choose a single payer system. We have two choices to reform the medical care insurance system in the U.S. 1) the nation must either implement a SINGLE PAYER government run medical insurance plan that will take over all group policies, many of which hobble our large corporations in the global market while at the same time limiting labor mobility, and all individual plans, most of which currently subject all insureds to the terror of "rolling underwriting" and various coverage gaps, outrageous deductibles; OR 2) we must radically restructure the current private medical care insurance market so that private insurers are NO longer in the UNDERWRITING business (as medical care gatekeepers deciding who gets to have insurance at an affordable rate). [See below for a terribly inadequate barebones outline of my minimum requirements for a possible (?) version of this 2nd option.\ Congress should create an independent advisory committee of economists and other appropriate professional to help it make its choice. Once the choice is made congress should create a heavy-duty panel to put together the nuts and bolts details for whichever type of plan the federal government selects, but only after it has prohibited special interest political lobbying of the committee. [A bare-bones outline of a possible (?) version of the 2nd option: a) Insurance companies must accept all comers at the same price per policy (see below) and would therefore become intermediaries in the price/quality negotiations between the medical care consumers and the medical care suppliers and they will make their profits by putting together insurance bundles of particular quality levels of medical suppliers at pre-contracted rates within a range of basic premiums. b) The poor and low income medical consumers would receive direct government subsidies to help pay for the policy of their choice. c) All insureds would be allowed to switch insurance companies and policies with no more than 30 days notice required. (rapid quality and price signals.) d) All insurance companies must offer at least 5 different policies covering all market price ranges from the "GOLD PLATED, RESORT HOSPITAL, BRAND NAME, HOLLYWOOD DOCTOR, NO CHOICE LEFT BEHIND, NO PRICE TOO HIGH, MEDICAL CARE" to the basic "LIMITED CHOICE GENERIC BUT PERFECTLY ADEQUATE, COMPLETELY EFFECTIVE, AND THOROUGHLY HUMANE MEDICAL CARE" (For example, the economy policy would guarantee pre-contract care availability from a minimum of 10 medical suppliers for each medical specialty or type of supplier within a 25 mile radius of the insured's home OR all 9 or fewer medical suppliers within that 25 mile radius and transportation costs covered for the 1 or more complement of suppliers beyond that 25 mile radius but no fewer than 10 total OR 20% of the total suppliers available in the 25 mile radius of the insured's home whichever is larger.) (essential for good quality and price signals.) e) All the insurance companies would receive an anti-trust exemption for their jointly owned and operated non-profit administrative intermediary that would coordinate care among, make payments to, and collect refunds from all the medical suppliers. (STANDARDIZED FORMS!) f) No underwriting would be allowed unless the transition period is over AND the prospective insured is over 25 years of age AND has at the time of purchase not been insured by any insurer or government program for more than 180 days AND no other legal requirement to forgo underwriting applies. (This should solve the "free-rider problem" without anyone being required to buy insurance, Mass. style.) g) No "double-billing" for medical suppliers; care payments for any patient must be paid entirely by the insurance company for the full contracted amount or entirely from a very well off medical customer or other 3rd party. (The insurance companies must handle all of the price negotiations with medical suppliers for the system to work.) h) Therefore no deductibles and no co-pays of any kind. (The over use of resources that they prevent is not worth the social cost of the under use that they encourage or even mandate for certain income brackets.) (Fallacy of composition.) i) The premium includes everything or nothing for any particular course of treatment and all policies must cover all non-experimental, state-of-the-art treatments. j) Pharmaceutical companies, their distributors, and retail sellers would be prohibited from selling any patented drug in the U.S. to anyone at more than 105% of the average or median world price per dosage unit (whichever is lower) wholesale or retail as appropriate. k) Insurers must include all approved generic drugs in all their policies' formularies. l) Insurers must include all patented medications for which there are no equivalent generic alternatives available OR if specific demonstrated patient side-effects and/or ineffectiveness preclude the use of all alternative generic medications in all policies' formularies. m) Insurers must include any patented medication in their formulary for their lowest priced policy if the pharmaceutical company et al is willing to supply sell it at 100 % of the average or median world price per dosage unit (whichever is lower), wholesale or retail as appropriate. n) Insurers must include any patented medication in their formulary for their next-to-lowest priced policy if the pharmaceutical company et al is willing to supply sell it at 101 % of the average or median world price per dosage unit (whichever is lower), wholesale or retail as appropriate. o) And so on through their highest priced policy at 105%. p) All medical suppliers would have to have independent auditors compile and publish all necessary and appropriate effectiveness statistics (risk adjusted positive/adverse outcome ratios etc). (The crucial economic quality information signal necessary for any market to efficient and more importantly in this case to eliminate negative externalities.)\

Comment by Phyllia Gillanders on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 03:57 PM

Aftrer hearing Sen. McCain, you folks in the US should not vote for him, he would be a disaster.He is totally lacking in any awareness of the problematics in foreigh relations and therefore would be very dangerous to the world. He thinks the Chinese should not have air craft carriers but it is OK for the US because the US had no dsire to impose its will on other countries?!!! After I had quit laughting I was angry at this;man's hubris and plain dangerous stupidity. If this is the best the US has in foreign policy thinkers then you are in trouble. No wonder he thought he could walk freely through a market in Bagdad, his grip on reality is flawed. Remember, military overreach along with arrogance has been the downfall of all past empires.

Comment by barbara serman on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 02:54 PM

McCain has a good sense of humor but no sense when it comes to war or health care.

Comment by Karen McFarland on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 11:36 AM

I came away totally impressed by Senator McCain last night. Though you may not agree with all of his views, He is informed, experienced and focused on what he feels is best for our country. We desperately need a statesman/president that can represent us here and abroad. I appreciated his comment about his willingness to stand up in congress next month and express his concerns, even if it cost him the candidacy. Principles and integrity should be the foundation of any candidate.

Comment by Anton Grambihler on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 06:55 AM

John will never understand our enemies as long as he believes that you can have a set of International rules which says that one Nation can be outside the rules, and all other Nations have to be within them. I believe he has even called these Zionist Terrorists his friend Israel. International laws are there for everybody. Why does the United States provide Armament and financial aid to ONE country in the Middle East that has been in violation of International Law, United Nations Resolutions, has unregulated non-conventional weapons, and has treated other people inhumanely almost ever since it was created, but invades and threatens to invade other Nations in the Middle East with lesser violations? When the Nazis Terrorists continued to violate International Law after Land was taken from Czechoslovakia and given to them, they were forced to accept unconditional surrender. Nothing less must be accepted from the Zionist Terrorists. 100% Citizen of the United States of America Anton J. Grambihler 2008 Davison Ave. Richland WA 99354-2015 www.CitizenAmendments.org

Comment by Glenis C. Belyea on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 02:04 AM

I found the tone of Sen. McCain's voice highly amusing when he refered to the Canadian & English Health Care Systems with distain. How horrid that the poor people of a country receive the same good care as rich people. Of course this is all paid for with our taxes. I consider it a priviledge to pay taxes to keep our infant mortalty rate much lower than that of the USA just to mention one of the advantages of Universal Health Care. When is the USA going to get health services for all people up to the standard of Canada and Europe instead of spending an absolutely horrendous amount of money on uncalled for wars. Glenis Belyea

Comment by Lincoln B. Justice on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 01:22 AM

Sen. McCain offered no new ways to solve the many problems that America and the world is facing. All he offered was a continuation and expansion of the methods that have failed. He plans to continue the present system of private insurance companies and big pharma that are the major cause of our failed health care system. He talks about the need to build the trust of the American people in government but suggests a better use of the media and cyberspace to get the message out. John McCain made an excellent case for removing him from the Senate and making sure that he does not become president.

Comment by Gregory Bownik on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 01:07 AM

I think Senator McCain and other presidential candidates should realize that fixing healthcare needs to start with accountability on the part of health care providers. All health care procedures are coded and reimbursement is based on these codes. For example, an intermediate level office visit would be coded 99213. The time allocated to this code is usually 15 to 20 minutes per patient. Unfortunately, many physicians see five to ten patients an hour and still bill health insurers at the 99213 rate (rather than 99212 or 99211 which are reimbursed at a lower rate). The coding and reimbursement of health care services is the first step toward reform and I'm afraid that most presidential candidates are not familiar enough with health care finances to put together a plan that will really work. Accessability, as McCain suggests, is great, but not when the healthcare system is overcharging for the services it provides. As a former health claims auditer, I think the solution is easier than most politicians think.

Comment by aaron brown on Tuesday, Aug 21 at 12:00 AM

Sen. McCain commented that "the united states has the best quality of health care in the world". The question charlie should have asked is: for who? Top quality care for senators and multi-millionaires is useless for the average guy, and anyone who has seen the statistics regarding infant mortality and any number of other health indicators knows that as a nation we are doing very poorly indeed. This is just the sort of comment that I would have expected charlie to challenge - I was disappointed he let it go...