W.- A Review

Last night my hubby and I watched W.- the film by Oliver Stone about George W. Bush. I don't know if any of you saw it, but I thought I would give a quick review in case anybody was curious.

I actually didn't want to watch this movie. It's pretty obvious I do not like Bush at all, but I didn't want to watch a movie that bashed him and made him look like some sort of monster. I am very skeptical of movies like this because how can anyone know the intimate conversations he had with Cheney, or Laura, or anybody else? So I came into the movie with very low expectations- and I will say, in the end, I was pleasantly surprised as this movie did exceed those low expectations.

The movie focused on the Iraq War and Bush's relationship with his father. The movie was incredibly well researched- and they give you the research notes, annotations, etc. with the DVD. You see a human side of Bush and his administration. You see that mistakes were made (in particular WMD's- or lack thereof), and that Bush seems genuinely distraught that he made those mistakes. I think that regardless of political persuasion, if one came into the movie with an open mind they could learn a few things about Bush that they didn't know before. However, I think it would make most people angry in some way. For my husband and me, we were angry with Cheney (again) and Bush (again) for the way 9/11 and Iraq were handled, and I imagine conservatives would be angry that it shows Bush as a real person who did some things wrong and not a hero that many wish he was (don't be offended, the same can be said of Obama and liberals).

The acting in the movie was OK, but I have to say the character of Condaleeza Rice drove me nuts- I hated the way she talked and how she enabled Bush. I don't know much about her in real life, but my hubs said he thought she was just as annoying in real life, so maybe she is- I don't know.

Overall, I would give the movie a 3 out of 5.

Dead from Health Care Rationing: Americans - 22, Canadians - 0

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) in testimony before the house recently went on to say how health care rationing - like in Canada (whatever!) will lead to dead Americans. According to him:

Madam Speaker, a critically ill baby was born in Canada just last month. Her name is Ava Isabella Stinson. She was born 13 weeks premature and weighed only 2 pounds. Unfortunately, Canada rations health care. And since the government must grant permission for one to have health care access, Ava was unable to get the
treatment she needed to survive....Fortunately for her, Ava's parents were able to quickly transport her to Buffalo, New York. Little Ava's life was saved by the best doctors in the world right here in America.

See the whole splendid load of tripe here.

Read the rest of this post on my new hero blog here.

Another good one, a former top insurance exec blows the whistle, is here.

My favorite quote:

Not only does Texas explicitly ration care, but so does US, implicitly. Multiple
studies have been been published, all of which show around a 25% increased
chance of death for the uninsured. That breaks down to about 22,000 deaths in 2006 due to health care rationing based on wealth.

I remember when Harry and Louise were on the telly lying through their scripted teeth about Clinton's health care plan. And it worked! Never again, never again.

Palin says she'll stump for conservative Democrats?

Excuse me while I choke on my potato salad.. Wait, they're doing the Heimlich right now. Wait ---okay. hahahahahahhahahahhahahhahahahahahahhahahhaha......

Apparently Jupiter and Saturn have their stars and moons crossed. We're now in an alternate universe where Sarah Palin claims she's bipartisan, and Spock is young again (and he has a girlfriend! they even kiss, ugh) and Kirk can't get any if he tried. Kirk for crying out loud! See here and here if you don't believe me.

Ah, no thanks.

Republican Health Care Reform - Don't Get Sick

I want something done about health care in this country. We have a president now whose willing to do something about it. Finally. He wants to spend billions of dollars to do it.

A few years ago we had a president who wanted to do something about Saddam Hussein. He spent billions of dollars to do it. We let him.

I want someone to explain the difference here. I want to know why some people are willing to justify spending billions of dollars on war with other countries, and not justify spending that much on providing health care for every hard-working American.

My husband works harder than anyone I know. Yet he can't get health insurance now because he has a pre-existing condition. Even if the business he worked for provided it, which they don't because they can't afford the premiums, there would still be a waiting period of at least 1-2 years before they covered his medical condition, if they covered it at all. Not everyone can work for huge companies that provide excellent benefits, except Walmart (the largest employer in the US) of course, they make their employees wait two years, or so I heard.

I want to clarify a common misconception perpetuated by the listeners of Rush Limbaugh who take what that doofus says as actual truth - Americans who want some sort of health care reform do not want something for nothing. So let me make something perfectly clear. My husband doesn't want free medical care. My husband, and all Americans who have some sort of medical condition would like the opportunity to buy insurance at a reasonable price, to not have to decide between going bankrupt or going to the doctor if they feel sick. People are dying every day because of this, because they are not going to the doctor. Not poor people; they get Medicaid. Not rich people; they all can afford insurance, or if they can't get it, they can afford to pay out of pocket. It's the MIDDLE CLASS that is taking it in the pants! So unlike the bumper sticker below, I chose a new one to put on my car: Health Care Reform - a Choice Between Life or Death.

I choose life.

What are you choosing?