The issue here is clear: The military is an authoritarian hierarchical command structure in which subordinates must follow the orders of their superior officers. This structure, while absolutely necessary on the battlefield - and understandably practiced off the battlefield - could obviously result in inappropriate pressure being placed on subordinates. All superior officers should be aware of this and act in such a way that the subordinates do not feel pressured to conform to their personal religious beliefs; i.e., made uncomfortable. If there is any debate here, its only on the semantics of the AF's statement.

"Whistleblowers" who have information to share about government misconduct typically go directly to the press rather than through government channels, for reasons that are somewhat obvious. There are many conservative media institutions who would be more than willing - perhaps even too willing - to provide a platform. The fact that no one is coming forward would seem to suggest that Issa is simply engaging in political posturing, which Ms. Pavlich is perfectly happy to abet.

I think the school district is trying to make the point that it is wildly irresponsible to mix random chemicals together when you don't know what the result will be; perhaps most especially when you don't know what the result will be. This is a sane policy, and the consequences of the experiment could have been much, much worse. I don't think its wrong to argue that expulsion is bit much, but there is definitely a point worth making here.

For the record, Ezra Klein's WonkBlog (not "Book," which shows how thoroughly Mr. Ransom researched his topic) provides thoughtful commentary that is policy-oriented rather than politics- oriented. You may not agree with everything that they say, but you will learn something about the subject at hand by reading their posts.

The essence of Klein's post was as follows: Republicans, hoping to embarrass democrats, insisted that congress purchase care through the newly created exchanges. Democrats called their bluff and agreed. Unfortunately, the laws which mandate how congressional and other health plans are paid for don't take Obamacare into consideration. This is a fairly trivial, uninteresting, and easy to fix oversight. The claims that congress is trying to exempt itself are thus melodramatic political posturing, which Mr. Ransom nonetheless apparently finds it useful to engage in.

One important thing to realize here is how the prices for health care are determined. Insurance companies negotiate with services providers (doctors and hospitals) and then sell the plans to employers or individuals. The leverage in this relationship is with the service providers. Increasing the competition between insurers actually increases the leverage of doctors thus increasing what they can charge, which ultimately gets passed on the employer or individual.

..."they'd just have to set up a payment plan and make payments..." Health care costs can easily run into the tens of thousands. Most people simply can't afford this. (2) "Health insurance should be for major surgeries or procedures." Routine health checks can often catch problems early thus avoiding the need for "major surgeries or procedures." This reduces time lost at work and the total cost of health care overall. (3) "It shouldn't be used for everything everyone thinks they shouldn't have to pay for." In a functioning insurance based system, whether private or public, you are paying for things. All insurance is literally socialism. We pay into a big pot, and the money is directed as needed. If you are fortunate enough not...

"It shocks me that so many people honestly believe that government at ANY level will do things SO much better." It is uncontroversial that Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA, in terms of quantity of medical care delivered per tax dollar spent, are considerably more efficient than their private sector counterparts. Their administrative costs are lower because they don't advertise and don't have to make a profit, and the doctors are reimbursed at a lower rate for their services - which is good for you as a taxpayer, if not for the doctor necessarily. This is true of comparable government programs in other western democracies as well, which generally spend about half the amount per capita on health care as the US while delivering comparable...

"But there is at least one area where Canada offers cutting-edge, life-saving technologies. Unfortunately, to get this care, you have to meow or bark. Veterinary care is still handled by the market. Providers innovate or go out of business. " I wonder what happens to ailing pets whose owners can't afford the care they need? Are we going to simply going to allow people to suffer and die if they can't afford the care they need? If not, then the veterinary market in Canada is probably not a good model for a health care system designed to meet the needs of human beings.

First of all, Obamacare extends Medicaid to cover those making up to 133% of the poverty line, which will increase enrollment in the program. While it is quite probable that many will choose to go uninsured, others given the opportunity for the first time to purchase affordable health insurance or enroll in Medicaid will do so and avoid the emergency room. Among those who choose to go without insurance, they will be "fined" or "taxed" for that privilege. Some of these will not be able to afford even that and, thus, this is not a 100% fix. It is, however, arguably a substantial improvement over the status quo.