Incidentally, keep an eye on income limits for public health care programs. Will they rise from as much as 250 per cent of the poverty level to 400 per cent or even higher? Hmmm…

http://people-press.org/

Also don't neglect this set-of-polls site:

http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm

I view an augmentation of government in health care, and specifically a greater federal role, as inevitable. The details to me are what are most fascinating. (Extending existing programs like Medicare make the most sense and are simpler than the mess we're seeing now, but special interests have sway back in DC and going openly to Medicare — “single-payer” as say those afraid to refer honestly to what they want — is currently seen as the purview only of the extreme Left like Physicians for a National Health Plan and far-left Dems like Conyers and Kucinich and others who have sponsored the bill Conyers continues to try to get passed.)

'questioning the “science” of global climate change
might make people believe that you don't believe in “science.”''

You're on thin ice there too.”

Thinner than the Arctic ice sheet, even after another 10-20 years worst case.

Or should that be (properly) redirected right at those who never question it and find that to be horrible?

Mirror talk. It's overwhelmingly the Left that runs off emotion rather than reason and leaps routinely to illogical conclusions.

* * *

“If you're going to attack him for a particular position he has taken, global warming is a risky choice. Scientific questions are almost never completely settled, and our climatology models have a great deal of settling left to do. His calls for caution may yet prove prescient on either scientific or political grounds.”

The Church of Global Warming [scowl] … a particular irritant to someone who appreciates climates…

So many people simply believe what they want to believe (activists so often so very much), and the rest of the gullible public has been routinely fooled by at-times-very-stupid, at-times-brutally-exploitive hysteria and alarmism (worse than any kind of “climate of fear” or attendent anger described about the public after the 9-11 attacks). Not one in ten thousand among the public understands global warming or its likely consequences, if it rather than a cooling should likely happen (there is no reason whatsoever for agitation or panic), while the whole global warming “movement” is, as another person has correctly described it, a Convenient Religion complete with demons and hyperbolic visions of an apocalypse, as well as vicious Inquisition-and-worse attacks on anyone who dare not profess unthinking faith and belief in the “problem” and its “solution” — i.e. to question or to hesitate to unthinkingly believe, much less reject, is to commit heresy or apostasy. (The most notorious madrassas turning out brain-broken youth are sometimes more benign than what we see with the Church of Global Warming.) It's not just that I've liked learning about weather and climate for years and that I bitterly resent how the subject of climate has been corrupted and stained, and that for many it's just the latest excuse to impose the kind of government and society so long sought before under other pretenses, but I despise the scummier activist misbehavior that have given such a stench to this “movement” and all the baggage and wreckage that have accompanied it.

They're far worse by several orders of magnitude, and longer-lasting, than anyone they attacked who was participating in the years-long SUV market and road-social trend, a frequent object of their pathology.

Too bad they didn't grow up after the “population explosion” idiocy lost its substance and momentum.

Personally, I'd rather have the government than some employee who's bonus is based on how many claims they can reject.

We need more polls. We need overwhelming proof that the American people want a public health plan. It is the only way to get the moderate dems on board.

Will has even, from time to time, engaged in pure partisan hackery. Again, this doesn't make him special.

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblai…

You're on thin ice there too. They don't call me Dr J for nothing.

If you're going to attack him for a particular position he has taken, global warming is a risky choice. Scientific questions are almost never completely settled, and our climatology models have a great deal of settling left to do. His calls for caution may yet prove prescient on either scientific or political grounds.

If you want to look up to this Washington insider, who toes the line of correctness to his politcal idealogy, don't expect anybody to respect your opinions. They are obviously tainted by a very twisted POV.
But how nice that you recognize Molly Ivins. Too bad your team doesn't have anyone with her insight and wit.

Like his series of columns on global warming?

Since you mentioned it, I'll tell you one of my pet peeves about conservatives. They overreact; they take a statement or a phrase and go off the deep end because to them, it means the statement or the phrase is saying something much more universal about ALL conservatives.

We've got a difference of opinion here about George Will's overall intellectual and reasoning abilities. You think that if I examine Will's body of work I will find someone with a powerful intellect and superior research, reasoning, and writing abilities. I will admit that I have *not* examined, as a formal matter, Will's entire body of work — and it's entirely possible there are some specific examples out there that I would find as praiseworthy as I did the one I mentioned in my post. But they would not be the overwhelming majority, because what you find to be a rare and uncommonly elevated intellect I consider to be an ideological hack. That is my opinion, which springs from an entire inner well of values, experiences, beliefs, perceptions, preferences, and so on and so on. It does not mean I'm right and you're wrong. It means I dislike (intensely) George Will's political perceptions and conclusions, and you admire them. That's all it means, Jazz. It's not a statement about all conservatives and it's not a suggestion that Will ia a blind squirrel who managed to find a nut. It's rather just what it appears to be on the surface — a political commentator who is reliably (in my view) reflexively right-wing, dim-witted, and dishonest (in his writing) writes something that delightfully contradicts that perception. And I believe in giving credit where it's due.