Can you please expand upon one example where universal healthcare has failed? I'm interested in your specific examples. Then I'd be more than happy to provide you with more specifics. Thanks.

I agree with your claim, "Throughout the Constitution the founders use very specific terms to mean very specific things."

You also claim that, "Promote the general Welfare = all laws/regulations should not harm the country"

Dictionary.com defines the term promote:

1. To help or encourage to exist or flourish; further: to promote world peace.

2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.

3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.

4. . To contribute to the growth, enlargement, or prosperity of (any process or thing that is in course); to forward; to further; to encourage; to advance; to excite; as, to promote learning; to promote disorder; to promote a business venture. "Born to promote all truth." --Milton.

Dictionary.com defines the term general:

1. of or pertaining to all persons or things belonging to a group or category: a general meeting of the employees.

2. of, pertaining to, or true of such persons or things in the main, with possible exceptions; common to most; prevalent; usual: the general mood of the people.

3. not limited to one class, field, product, service, etc.; miscellaneous: the general public; general science.

4. considering or dealing with overall characteristics, universal aspects, or important elements, esp. without considering all details or specific aspects: general instructions; a general description; a general resemblance one to another.

5. not specific or definite: I could give them only a general idea of what was going on.

I believe that promoting general welfare is not intended for the federal government strictly due to the use of the term general instead of simply stating "Promoting the welfare of the federal government." Promoting general welfare would involve more than simply making sure the law/regulations we put in place do "not harm the country."

You make the rash claim that, "Everywhere Universal Health Care has been tried, it has failed. UHC always becomes expensive, restrictive and lacks innovation." Can you expand upon one example where it has failed and what its failings were?

I'm wondering what part of,"The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents," a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, "Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents," confuses you? Your argument against gays adopting appears to be completely speculative. Also, I'm wondering what kind of buddhism you practice.

I'd like to know what you define as a "normal" mindset. Here's a link to the Child Welfare Information Gateway: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm

Children get teased for many reasons. "Gay and lesbian parents are well aware of the difficulties that a child may face - many have dealt with prejudice all of their lives. Most see it as an opportunity for ongoing discussion that will help their children grow as people."

According to studies, "Wendell Ricketts and Roberta Achtenberg, in the article "Adoption and Foster Parenting for Lesbians and Gay Men: Creating New Traditions in Family" from Homosexuality and Family Relations, address social workers grappling with the issue by asking, "...should children be sheltered from every experience in which their difference might challenge prejudice, ignorance, or the status quo (or in which they would be 'exposed' to the difference of others)? Agencies conforming to such a standard must ask themselves whether it is their function to honor the system that generates stigma by upholding its constraints." They continue, "Teasing is what children do. Does this mean that child welfare policy must be set at a level no higher than the social interactions of children?"

"The bulk of evidence to date indicates that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are no more likely to become homosexual than children raised by heterosexuals. As one researcher put it, "If heterosexual parenting is insufficient to ensure that children will also be heterosexual, then there is no reason to conclude that children of homosexuals also will be gay". 11

"Studies asking the children of gay fathers to express their sexual orientation showed the majority of children to be heterosexual, with the proportion of gay offspring similar to that of a random sample of the population. An assessment of more than 300 children born to gay or lesbian parents in 12 different samples shows no evidence of "significant disturbances of any kind in the development of sexual identity among these individuals". 12

"Courts have expressed concern that children raised by gay and lesbian parents may have difficulties with their personal and psychological development, self-esteem, and social and peer relationships. Because of this concern, researchers have focused on children's development in gay and lesbian families.

The studies conclude that children of gay or lesbian parents are no different than their counterparts raised by heterosexual parents. In "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents," a 1992 article in Child Development, Charlotte Patterson states, "Despite dire predictions about children based on well-known theories of psychosocial development, and despite the accumulation of a substantial body of research investigating these issues, not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."

Psychiatrist Laurintine Fromm, of the Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital, agrees with that finding. "[The] literature...does not indicate that these children fare any worse [than those of heterosexual parents] in any area of psychological development or sexual identity formation. A parent's capacity to be respectful and supportive of the child's autonomy and to maintain her own intimate attachments, far outweighs the influence of the parent's sexual orientation alone."

I mean the quality of the writing was for the most part good in all of these books. I think a good book is one that adds something substantive to the reader's experience. I'm not overly concerned with lessons or messages...each reader will most likely experience different lessons or messages. Also, why shouldn't creative writing be a part of an English class? I'm not sure of the elements of The Girl in the Flammable Dress that put it on the creative writing side for you. Can you explain why you feel this way? Is it because it's a collection of short stories?

By the time I finished high school, I read and thoroughly enjoyed most of the books I listed and those I didn't read until after high school, I now wish I had. That's why I put them on the list, and they must have done some good because I went on to major in English. I think these books will give students a strong foundation in English--one that will actually aid them in life after high school. Mainly, they're just damn good books.

Feed-M.T. Anderson

The Girl in the Flammable Skirt-Aimee Bender

Hot Water Music-Charles Bukowski

If on a Winter's Night a Traveler...-Italo Calvino

The Fall-Albert Camus

Notes From The Underground-Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Complete Plays-Sarah Kane

The Life Force Poems-Gerald Locklin

On The Road-Jack Kerouac

Till We Have Faces-C.S. Lewis

The Complete Stories-Flannery O'Connor

1984-George Orwell

The Bell Jar-Sylvia Plath

Cannery Row-John Steinbeck

Requiem for a Dream-Hubert Selby Jr

The Lichtenberg Figures-Ben Lerner

The End of the Road-John Barth

If He Hollars Let Him Go-Chester Himes

Tuesdays with Morrie-Mitch Albom

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest-Ken Kesey

Catch 22- Joseph Heller

The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn-Mark Twain

American Smooth-Rita Dove

Walden-David Thoreau

Can you elaborate? How long were you in Austria and what for? Why do the doctors have to find something wrong with you in order to make money?

Since you bring up the doctors, I found a group called Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). You can visit their website: http://www.pnhp.org/.

They claim, "Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($7,129 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 47 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered."

When it comes to the actual cost of insurance, they argue that, "The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars."

These doctors believe that, "Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, long-term care, mental health, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing."

I think we need to focus on the actual issue, which is health care in this country and not wander off in the direction of education, which while it is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed and has lasting effects perhaps even in regards to our health care system it doesn't mean that the system itself shouldn't be changed.

On a personal note, I'd trust the government to take care of me more than a private insurance company. Also, the most I've ever waited at the DMV is an hour. I had to wait months and months in order to see a specialist my doctor referred me to (of course, one my insurance would cover), and then when I finally got to see the specialist, he had so many appointments that he only saw me for about 5 minutes. I think Universal Health care would be better for everyone, for the reasons I've already outlined. I'm not focusing solely on the poor. What numbers are you referencing?