Seriously, Mike Toreno, you've got to cut the attitude. You're free to express your disagreements here, but insulting the editor just isn't cool.

But it does lead me to ask a question I've wondered about for a while:

Guys, if a woman showed up at a ministry you lead, and later found out it was (partly) because she was attracted to you, would you be weirded out?

Of course, the assumption is that the ministry she's showing up at is (a) appropriate (i.e., not a men's group ;) and (b) a genuine interest of hers.

I know someone will whine that some people die because they don't have health care now and that having government health care will solve this. But with an anti-life government that person would probably STILL die and even more people on top of that (with government assistance!)

Wake up, folks! The deception and manipulation that is being forced on the masses is unbelievable. The government and the media are both working together to make America a socialist country. Don't be fooled by the airy propaganda or the scare tactics.

In particular, this comment summed it up very succinctly:

"I'm a [Twitter] quitter. There was a moment of awareness when I realized I was talking more about my life than actually living it ..."

Nevertheless, if you find great joy and value in tweeting, and it doesn't come at the expense of actual face-to-face relationships with your friends and loved ones, then I wish you nothing but the best.

What do you say to someone who has been seeking God for a wife for over 20 years, without answer?

What do you say to someone who is as active in church as time and talents permit - spending 5 hours on the road every week, just in order to attend?

What do you say when this person believes that God has placed them in a country area, in an industry dominated by men, and where there is a paucity of single women?

What do you say to someone who has a condition that makes communication more difficult, and friendships slower to develop? Who has a limited tolerance for social interaction?

I love the stories and the advice on this site, but some of us aren't quite typical.

Love.......... Peter
(Not bitter. Not despairing. But rather Prov13:12(a))

Now, to what extent do we move tort reform? I did take a single law class that touched on litigation in college, and I can certainly understand the need for litigation to encourage doctors to do their job well, but there must be a balance where lawyers aren't simply getting rich. As a pilot, I've read about litigation in the aviation industry. In the 1980's, litigation basically killed off small single (and multi) engine piston aircraft. The General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) of 1994 put a special Statute of Limitations on aircraft litigation and brought small general aviation back to life. Granted, the litigation insurance paid by companies such as Cessna and Piper for such aircraft still makes them FAR more expensive than they need to be, GARA (tort reform) still saved small general aviation.

As a Canadian (living in the States), I feel compelled to point out one thing about the Canadian system. The Canadian government does keep health costs lower for itself, but it does this by keeping doctor's and nurse's salaries quite low. This has created a new problem: all the doctors and nurses (like my mom) leave and go to the States where the pay is better and wait times in Canada go up more.

First, make all doctors salaries exactly the same. No matter if you are a cancer specialist or a proctologist 75,000 a year total salary.

Second, nurses get 30,000 per year.

This never changes, no increases of inflation, no benefits for length of tenure or quality of work.

Third, no visits to the emergency room unless you are bleeding profusely, or unconscious.

Fourth, no fancy schamcy, high tech equipment, just a stethoscope, a tongue depressor and a hand full of pain killers.

Fifth, make all hospitals government agencies. Take away the ability of the hospitals to set costs, instead set exactly the same fees for every single hospital in the US. $25 dollars per stay.

Sixth, limit of one child per family. This will greatly reduce the cost of all those expensive births. All subsequent pregnancies will result in an abortion and sterilization.

Seventh, and the most cost effective measure, no medical help of any kind for the infirm, mentally disabled, sexually befuddled, and anyone over 72 (they have lived long enough).

WELCOME TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD, HOPE AND CHANGE, BABY!!!!!

I'm quite certain my plan will save vast quantities of money. Why the heck should we care if a few useless eaters assume room temperature prematurely, after all, cost is what matters, right?

1) We have expensive health care because we get a lot for our money. We have a lot of cutting-edge procedures, diagnostics, and medications that most people in the world don't have. You pay more for a lobster dinner than you do for a Happy Meal.

2) We already have extensive government intervention in the health care industry, not only through obvious routes like Medicare and Medicaid, but subtler routes like regulation of pharmaceuticals. It takes 10 years to bring a new drug to market, and the company has to make all their research costs back before the patent runs out and the generics can start making it without having to invest the research and testing costs. So, naturally, it's expensive. 60% of health care dollars are currently government dollars. What makes anyone think that increasing that to 100% will make things better?

3) Even more basically, we have a behavioral problem because we don't pay for our own health care; insurance companies do. Therefore, the cost is hidden from both the provider and from the consumer. If I don't care how much something costs, you bet I'll use as much as I like. On the other hand, if the costs are coming out of my pocket, you better believe I'll be making some serious choices about whether or not I want that drug, or that test, or that procedure. The availability or lack thereof of insurance isn't the problem; it's the fact that I don't pay my own bills.

4) Tort reform matters, not only because of high malpractice costs (we're currently suffering a shortage of high-risk specialties like OB because of it), but because of the self-protective testing doctors order to cover their backsides in case they get sued. To solve it, all you'd have to do is say, "Loser pays." That would eliminate nuisance lawsuits in a heartbeat. Capping damages doesn't help, because they find ways around it, but if I risk coughing up a big chunk of cash myself if I lose, then I'm going to think twice about filing suit unless I have a good case.

Unfortunately, in its proposals to reform the industry, the Obama machine is violating principles 1, 2, 3...and 4. They want to cut costs without any consideration of the value lost; they want to throw more government into the mix; they want to keep the third-party payer in place; and they refuse even to discuss any form of tort reform (probably because a large number of Congresscritters are lawyers themselves). So expect nothing to improve.

The mountains are only 3 miles (4.8km) away. But the air has gotten much cleaner over the last 20 years since they eliminated all the manufacturing jobs implemented the better fuel standards. There's almost never a smog alert anymore.

Fun fact: I once ran 4 miles during a smog alert, not understanding what it was. My lungs were in pain for days...

However, while I confess I'm not an expert in ecomonics, it seems to me that the government has to take a role in this, because if it doesn't, poverty will rise like crazy.

Unfortunately, while this notion meets the modern politically correct view, it doesn't match history.

For about a century and a half, America went from a relative do-nothing backwater to the wealthiest country in the world without any form of government intervention whatsoever.

When Lyndon Johnson declared "war on poverty" in the 1960s, we had a lower percentage of the population in poverty than we have now. And yet, we have poured billions into that rathole.

Fundamentally, any system that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul - but not on his input. That's why government solutions do not work, have never worked, and will never work: They do not rely on voluntary charity, but on coerced taxation. They violate Scripture:

"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.'" - II Thessalonians 3:10

"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." - II Corinthians 9:7

Government welfare programs violate both these principles. They give to those who do not work, and they compel resources away from those who do.

And, for those who say, "But what about the poor?":

"You will always have the poor among you..." - John 12:8

Poverty will never be solved in this world. It can be ameliorated, and we should certainly give to those who cannot take care of themselves, but it will NEVER go away this side of Heaven. And it will certainly not go away if you reward people for not being productive.

The solution for need is production, not redistribution. In order to have wealth, it must first be created - by innovation, work, and skill. It's not just some static quantity lying around on the ground waiting for some beneficent Caesar to come along and divvy up among the deserving.

When you punish people for producing (by taxing them), and reward them for being "needy" (with welfare programs), you will get less production and more need. What's worse, you encourage sloth - because it's easy to be "needy", but difficult to be productive. When you remove the consequences of not being productive - i.e. not eating - you'll find out very quickly that people will follow the behavioral model you've created.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

I realize that taking care of the poor tugs at everyone's heartstrings. It does mine as well. But the best thing we can do for the poor is to kick them out of poverty. (To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin.) Give a man a fish? Or teach a man to fish?

Finally, government is not a compassionate animal. Its modus operandi - its reason for existence - is brute force. It's there to exert force to make people behave. And compassion and brute force are polar opposites. You can't hold a gun to someone's head and say, "Feel compassion!" It's fundamentally impossible.

Compassion is the job of the church - to whatever level of adequacy possible.

"From the day I met Kevin, he kept popping up next to me — church, children's ministry, improv."

Oddly, some time ago, a similar thing happened with a girl I met - she seemed to start popping up in many areas of similar interest where I was already involved - and not wanting to be rude, I welcomed her. :) Consequently, over time, I kind of did begin to like her. As I understand it, someone then asked her if we were dating; that bothered her, and reflecting on those frequent incidents of bumbing into each other, she accused me of stalking her! :( I politely pointed out that I hadn't changed any habits of my activity, ministry, or social involvements and therefore that's a wrong and hurtful conclusion; it was in fact she, who had been entering into new involvements where I already was.

Sadly, trust and friendship has never really been restored between us (not for lack of my gentle trying over the years). I think it's particularly sad because it's not a good picture of how brother-sister relationships should look like in the Kingdom of God; it's a very poor witness.

Grace, peace & security in Christ

How is it loving to pass massive debt on to others. Since when is "free" health care a right? Maybe the government should pay for my house etc. and maybe I'll just stop working too. The govt, being the single payer will be able to decide who is able to be the recipient of life saving care.

Have you read what Tom Daschle and others have to say about socialized health care (Read "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis ")? Essentially, if you're too old you, aren't worth treating anymore and we'll treat you for pain and let you die. This is so loving, Jesus would be proud.

I'm 28 years old and single. It's been tough, but recently the Lord revealed to me that I will be married in 2 years and that in the meantime I need to be serving and delighting in Him. Since then I have joined the Children's Ministry at my church and am trying to "run the race" until that special person God has set aside for me comes along. When the going gets tough (I too had a lonely and tear-laced New Years), I hold fast to His promise and that's what gets me by.

Again, through your testimony I have a glimse of what I'm in for if I just continue to put my trust in His unfailing word and to do what He has instructed me to do. That is a big encouragement!

I wish you a long, happy, Christ-filled marriage. =)

And, BDB, you can still see the mountains. Must have been before the 100+ degree weather hit (bringing the usual thick smog). Am I right?

I'm going to need something more compelling than just your word to believe that ob/gyns pay $300,000 in some parts of the country. May be true, may not be true, but just you saying something doesn't convince me of anything.

Whatever the cost is, yeah, I'm fine with it being passed along to the patients. A general social problem isn't "solved" by laying the entire burden onto injured people.

Yeah, I'm fine with a portion of the money being passed along to trial lawyers. A general social problem requires services for its resolution, the resolution of the problem requires services, the services require payment, the burden of payment for those services is properly distributed among the general public. The costs would be reduced if insurance companies did not resist paying legitimate claims, but that's a side issue.

How would the burdens caused by frivolous lawsuits be eliminated by placing arbitrary obstacles in the face of well-grounded lawsuits.

Are YOU happy about frivolous defenses to well-grounded lawsuits?

I'm not for government sponsored healthcare and see a lot of issues with the government mandated programs. However, perhaps as Christians we need to stop blaming the government and look in the mirror as to why those programs are needed in the first place. (I'm putting myself in this category!!)

Well said.

Grace, peace & adventure on The Way!

The U.S. government runs most things really well, among them the U.S. Postal Service

Listen: the US Postal Service is great. In America, you get mail on Saturday! In America, you can put mail in your own personal mailbox - the one on your house and the mail carrier will come to your freakin' house and get it! That's great service, my American friends.

I'm going for a hike on the hills behind my townhome. I'll e-mail them later today. There is beauty out here too! LOL on the AFB comment.

Yeah and don't play with MoVal police, they take their job a little seriously....I always wondered why Moval was quiet at night when driving, then I found out that teenagers have a curfew and during the day if a cop sees a kid walking, they will pick them up and call the school and parent...talk about tough on juveniles.

BTW, walking/hiking for at least an hour works as well.

Ashley, I can relate because I'm petite and slower than an 8 min. mile (most guys I know run faster than a 10:30 mile), but that's why I included walking/hiking as well.

apparently you missed the underlying theme that this is exactly what universal healthcare is...I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's probably what will happen.

BTW...if you have speeding tickets or accidents...your insurance goes UP, so basically it's the same thing....you WILL suffer more if you're not healthy. That's the point I was trying to make.

Not sure if that's a proverb or a Top Gun quote. ; )

Yes.

Not sure if that's a proverb or a Top Gun quote. ; )

Recently, Atul Gawande, a general surgeon and the author of "Complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect Science" and "Better", two very incredible books, wrote a piece for The New Yorker Here on health care costs. He discusses trends in McAllen, Texas, a town in which health care costs have risen despite tort reform limiting medical malpractice suits.

The basic thrust of the issue is that Americans consume and expect too much healthcare, and that too much healthcare is just as dangerous as too little. It's not about rationing, however.

Some doctors don't worry about the business side: they treat and bill, and hope it all works out. Others use money to better their practices: a nurse dedicated to monitoring diabetic patients, for example. And others see their businesses as a revenue stream: a patient with a query is directed to make an appointment, because insurance won't reimburse for a 5 minute phone call.

This is an amazing read, and has, according to NPR, come to the attention of the White House.

My fiance is 11 inches taller than I am which makes an enjoyable running experience almost impossible. He can walk at the rate I run. For someone who loves to run, this was disappointing :(

I am a runner and Kevin did cross-country in high school. We have not literally run much together because our schedules don't allow it, but I'll consider the tip!

The Obama plan is being packaged as "comprehensive health care reform", but--in reality--he's trying to save Medicare while avoiding the political disaster that would come from attempting to address Medicare in and of itself.

Wrapping it into an overarching health care plan, makes political sense.

Unfortunately for Obama, he does not have the money to make this--or any of his other grandiose plans--happen.

The reckoning is fast-approaching: the welfare state is not sustainable, nor is the larger government apparatus that relies on tax dollars and IOUs that are owned by creditors foreign and domestic.

The issue is whether Americans will wake up and smell the napalm, and realize that government has written way too many checks that her proverbial body cannot cash.

I'm not banking on the affirmative.

How about a picture of the mall?

March AFB! (Try not to get arrested while taking a picture.)

Question for you, Mike: Do you think it's right that OB/GYNs in certain parts of the country pay nearly $300,000 per year for malpractice insurance? If so, are you fine with that cost being passed along to the patients? Are you fine with that money being passed along to trial lawyers via the insurance companies? Are you fine with frivolous lawsuits, which also contribute to the high cost of insurance (and therefore medical costs)?

Compare that to the fantastic job the postal service and the military do getting packages from the U.S. to troops in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan. It amazes me how quickly things get there. Intact!

****enter violin music****

Government-Sponsored Enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, on the other hand...

Not denying the power of your post, but literally running with a partner is a really good way to grow closer as well. Or if you don't like to run, walking does the trick as well.

If you WERE on Twitter I would respond with this:

@thomasjeffries I'll be brave enough to say that you "just don't get it." Read this, it will help: http://tiny.cc/NhLMM

1. Stop smoking
2. Eat healthy so you're not obese
3. Run/Exercise
4. Practice heathful living limiting sugar/salt intake etc.

You can't complain about health care if you don't go to the doctor more than once a year or every other year.

Not trying to be a pessimist but now that smoking is the great evil, obesity is on the rise, I totally can see people not wanting to spend that much time on you unless you are generally healthy.

As to the chart, what I suggest is that you look at it, rather than just listen to what the Boehner says about it.

Your use of that term betrays an ignorance about how money moves about -- e.g., from you through government bureaucrats to hospitals -- to be frank. As my dad used to tell me, "You don't get something for nothing unless someone somewhere some time gets nothing for something."

The problems with the Canadian health care system are widespread and well-known.