Jeez, some people will complain about anything. Can't you for once just be happy about America doing well in something? Or would that be too 'Pro America' for all the moaning Republicans?

"Either the government is better at providing goods and services or the free market is"

You mean, either the government is better at deciding whether someone needs treatment, or an insurance company is. It's not that hard to work out the answer. I might not trust either much, but I certainly trust an actuary less. I trust him to make MONEY, but if that's at the expense of someone's health, that's how he'll do it.

Let me guess that Ann Coulter has a very expensive health care package...

How does the Boston police officer who wrote to the local paper calling Professor Gates a "banana-eating jungle monkey" fit in with Coulter's thesis? Don't tell me, that's not racist. How could it be racist - the officer was white, and we all know that only black people can be racist in Coulter-World.

Liberals are going on about Michael Jackson and Sarah Palin too much. So what do Coulter and O'Reilly blog about? Jackson and Palin, and how liberals talk about them too much... Right.

Also, I've not seen any liberals whining about Palin quiting. I think you'll find they're laughing. And the normal people? (what does Ann know about them?) They're saying 'if Palin can't even make one term in Alaska, thank GOODNESS we didn't elect her to be Vice President.

"One reason I believe in God is... that it seems impossible to survive without a Supreme Being. If a baby was born and there was no parent or adult to take care of it that baby would DIE. He would never grow up to reproduce. And that goes for every animal and every form of intelligent life."

Not true. Many species just lay their eggs and then move one. The eggs hatch, the turtles/crocs/etc then emerge and do their own thing. Then you've got a sliding scale amongst species of dependence on their parents until you get to us. The greater initial dependence results in a trade off to greater intelligence. Such a thing is no problem to evolutionary science.

"If fossils of the 'older' horses are found in the same recent stratum as fossils of the 'modern' horse how is it possible to come to the conclusion that one must be the ancestor to the other?"

My grandparents were still alive in my lifetime. There's no reason that the older horses couldn't have split into different lines, one of which went on to form the modern horse, the other stayed much the same, then died out.

Robert: "The amount of faith needed to believe in total evolution by chance and selection alone would tax the faith of a saint."

Why is selection not sufficient? If it was chance alone then I'd see your point, but chance is irrelevant once selection is in place.

"Darwin suited Adolf Hitler's purposes, too."

How many times does Hitler mention Darwin or evolution in Mein Kampf?

None.

How many times does Hitler mention God in Mein Kampf?

Too many to count.

Stick talking about science, Pat, and leave that to smart people who know what they're talking about. That includes climate change.

"There will be no new research and drugs coming out either."

Bit rich considering the previous administration's attitude to medical research. There was a flood of scientists across the Atlantic during those 8 years - from the US to the UK, as that was where they were able to get funding.

These threads always end up this way - one side posts a story about a patient having to wait for treatment in the UK, the other side responds with a story about an US insurance company refusing to pay for some guy to get important treatment. What's the point in either side acting like they've got some perfect system.

Look at the facts - health of the nation, longevity, child mortality etc.

Vespanet is right. If you offered any Brit the opportunity to adopt a system that would lower life expectancy and increase child mortality, how many would take it? Americans die younger, and they lose more babies at birth. Speaking as a Brit: no thanks.