<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_08_0534209</id>
	<title>Landmark Health Insurance Bill Passes House</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1257685080000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>theodp writes <i>"A hastily-crafted amendment imposing tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies helped pave the way for the House to <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33748707/ns/politics-health\_care\_reform/">approve the Democrats' bill to overhaul the nation's health insurance system</a>. 'It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans,' said Rep. John Dingell. Rep. Candice Miller disagreed, calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding' bill. The 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation passed by a vote of 220-215 and moves on for Senate debate, which is expected to begin in several days."</i>
<b>Update &mdash; 11/08 at 13:45 GMT by SS:</b> Changed vote totals above to reflect the actual bill vote. The 240-194 number was for the abortion restrictions amendment.</htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " A hastily-crafted amendment imposing tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies helped pave the way for the House to approve the Democrats ' bill to overhaul the nation 's health insurance system .
'It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans, ' said Rep. John Dingell .
Rep. Candice Miller disagreed , calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing , tax-hiking , deficit-exploding ' bill .
The 1,990-page , $ 1.2 trillion legislation passed by a vote of 220-215 and moves on for Senate debate , which is expected to begin in several days .
" Update    11/08 at 13 : 45 GMT by SS : Changed vote totals above to reflect the actual bill vote .
The 240-194 number was for the abortion restrictions amendment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "A hastily-crafted amendment imposing tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies helped pave the way for the House to approve the Democrats' bill to overhaul the nation's health insurance system.
'It provides coverage for 96 percent of Americans,' said Rep. John Dingell.
Rep. Candice Miller disagreed, calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding' bill.
The 1,990-page, $1.2 trillion legislation passed by a vote of 220-215 and moves on for Senate debate, which is expected to begin in several days.
"
Update — 11/08 at 13:45 GMT by SS: Changed vote totals above to reflect the actual bill vote.
The 240-194 number was for the abortion restrictions amendment.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021116</id>
	<title>Re:I think I can I think I can</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1257691740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Maybe the US will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in actually providing medical care to its citizens, instead of taking the, "find your own care" attitude.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>


Not bloody likely.  At least, not with <i>this </i> bill.<br> <br>
But thank you for the kind thoughts. Check in again a a decade or so, maybe we will have managed to drop to third world status by then and even Congress will realize that something drastic needs to be done.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the US will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in actually providing medical care to its citizens , instead of taking the , " find your own care " attitude .
Not bloody likely .
At least , not with this bill .
But thank you for the kind thoughts .
Check in again a a decade or so , maybe we will have managed to drop to third world status by then and even Congress will realize that something drastic needs to be done .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the US will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in actually providing medical care to its citizens, instead of taking the, "find your own care" attitude.
Not bloody likely.
At least, not with this  bill.
But thank you for the kind thoughts.
Check in again a a decade or so, maybe we will have managed to drop to third world status by then and even Congress will realize that something drastic needs to be done.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021298</id>
	<title>Special interest?</title>
	<author>stomv</author>
	<datestamp>1257692760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given that women make up more than half of the population of the United States, and more than half of the voting population of the United States, they are most certainly <i>not</i> a special interest.  They are the majority.</p><p>I hope you don't think of women as being a special interest, short of finding them especially interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given that women make up more than half of the population of the United States , and more than half of the voting population of the United States , they are most certainly not a special interest .
They are the majority.I hope you do n't think of women as being a special interest , short of finding them especially interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given that women make up more than half of the population of the United States, and more than half of the voting population of the United States, they are most certainly not a special interest.
They are the majority.I hope you don't think of women as being a special interest, short of finding them especially interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021046</id>
	<title>Great I'm scraping by as it is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Where am I going to get the extra cash to pay $15K? These over stuffed asshole millionaires in office are totally disconnected from reality, but then they probably can get the best psychiatric care on THEIR far superior health plan. Which we ALSO pay for.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where am I going to get the extra cash to pay $ 15K ?
These over stuffed asshole millionaires in office are totally disconnected from reality , but then they probably can get the best psychiatric care on THEIR far superior health plan .
Which we ALSO pay for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where am I going to get the extra cash to pay $15K?
These over stuffed asshole millionaires in office are totally disconnected from reality, but then they probably can get the best psychiatric care on THEIR far superior health plan.
Which we ALSO pay for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021196</id>
	<title>Threat level increase to orange</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1257692220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For my wallet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For my wallet .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For my wallet ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021444</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>atriusofbricia</author>
	<datestamp>1257693720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Cash for Clunkers? Yes, that was a total failure. It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!! Oh my god, they can't get anything right!

Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.</p></div><p>2 million jobs in 2 months? Put down the crack pipe and pull out a reference for a claim like that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cash for Clunkers ?
Yes , that was a total failure .
It 's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years , and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS ! !
Oh my god , they ca n't get anything right !
Note that I do n't really like the CfC idea , but it 's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.2 million jobs in 2 months ?
Put down the crack pipe and pull out a reference for a claim like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cash for Clunkers?
Yes, that was a total failure.
It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!!
Oh my god, they can't get anything right!
Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.2 million jobs in 2 months?
Put down the crack pipe and pull out a reference for a claim like that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023248</id>
	<title>Re:An improvement, but not as good as it could be.</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1257705060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To answer another part of your question. The health care for the poor will be paid for by taxes on the super wealthy. I consider it far more important to save lives of the poor and treat their condition rather than to make sure a wealthy elite can afford another mansion. The taxes on the wealthy are going to leave more than enough to enjoy a very high standard of living, more than which is known to 99\% of the population of this planet. If you think that people should eb allowed to die because they are poor so some rich elite can purchase another yacht, while i think your priorities are mixed up, you dont place much of a value on human life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer another part of your question .
The health care for the poor will be paid for by taxes on the super wealthy .
I consider it far more important to save lives of the poor and treat their condition rather than to make sure a wealthy elite can afford another mansion .
The taxes on the wealthy are going to leave more than enough to enjoy a very high standard of living , more than which is known to 99 \ % of the population of this planet .
If you think that people should eb allowed to die because they are poor so some rich elite can purchase another yacht , while i think your priorities are mixed up , you dont place much of a value on human life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer another part of your question.
The health care for the poor will be paid for by taxes on the super wealthy.
I consider it far more important to save lives of the poor and treat their condition rather than to make sure a wealthy elite can afford another mansion.
The taxes on the wealthy are going to leave more than enough to enjoy a very high standard of living, more than which is known to 99\% of the population of this planet.
If you think that people should eb allowed to die because they are poor so some rich elite can purchase another yacht, while i think your priorities are mixed up, you dont place much of a value on human life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021820</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025394</id>
	<title>Re:How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257676920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How horrible. What are you smoking? you would actually give people the freedom to choose what they want? and pay for it if they want it? and work hard to get it if they want it?  You are cold and unfeeling.  The government should forcibly take everyone's money away, and tell them what they should have for healthcare, a car, a house, and an effing 486 with Windows 95.  Why would you give people the opportunity to choose for themselves. They are idiots who must be given what they need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How horrible .
What are you smoking ?
you would actually give people the freedom to choose what they want ?
and pay for it if they want it ?
and work hard to get it if they want it ?
You are cold and unfeeling .
The government should forcibly take everyone 's money away , and tell them what they should have for healthcare , a car , a house , and an effing 486 with Windows 95 .
Why would you give people the opportunity to choose for themselves .
They are idiots who must be given what they need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How horrible.
What are you smoking?
you would actually give people the freedom to choose what they want?
and pay for it if they want it?
and work hard to get it if they want it?
You are cold and unfeeling.
The government should forcibly take everyone's money away, and tell them what they should have for healthcare, a car, a house, and an effing 486 with Windows 95.
Why would you give people the opportunity to choose for themselves.
They are idiots who must be given what they need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021182</id>
	<title>Let's see..</title>
	<author>kothmac</author>
	<datestamp>1257692160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>We already have a 12 TRILLION dollar debt, 10.2\% unemployment, and fiat money.

Now we want to increase the deficit, and print out another trillion dollars? Face the facts: Keynesian economic DON'T WORK. Our money is WORTHLESS, and our government is driving it further into the ground. We haven't had a 'free market' in a hundred years, progressive policies will be the ruin of this country.

Goddamn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We already have a 12 TRILLION dollar debt , 10.2 \ % unemployment , and fiat money .
Now we want to increase the deficit , and print out another trillion dollars ?
Face the facts : Keynesian economic DO N'T WORK .
Our money is WORTHLESS , and our government is driving it further into the ground .
We have n't had a 'free market ' in a hundred years , progressive policies will be the ruin of this country .
Goddamn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We already have a 12 TRILLION dollar debt, 10.2\% unemployment, and fiat money.
Now we want to increase the deficit, and print out another trillion dollars?
Face the facts: Keynesian economic DON'T WORK.
Our money is WORTHLESS, and our government is driving it further into the ground.
We haven't had a 'free market' in a hundred years, progressive policies will be the ruin of this country.
Goddamn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746</id>
	<title>How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>jonwil</author>
	<datestamp>1257695760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is how I would fix the problems:<br>1.Eliminate company health plans (the providers of these plans have little to no incentive to offer any actual benefits to the employees as the companies cant change to someone better due to lock-in contracts and the huge costs of changing, nor can the employees generally switch without paying a lot more)</p><p>2.Give every citizen a certain amount of tax-free money they can use to buy health insurance. i.e. the first $x of their health insurance costs are tax free. This makes up for the loss of company health plans (which are generally tax free)</p><p>3.Make it super-easy for people to switch to another health provider anytime they choose without penalty (i.e. if they switch to a similar plan from a different provider, the new provider cant suddenly deny coverage for all your pre-existing conditions just because you switched providers)</p><p>4.All health care providers must charge the same amount for the same treatment no matter who is paying. If a hospital charges $2000 for a procedure to one person, they must charge the same $2000 to everyone who gets the procedure (no matter if its the government via medicare, a large health plan, a small insurance company, an individual paying out of pocket or whatever else). Obviously they can increase the price anytime they want but again they need to charge the same new price to everyone</p><p>5.Take away all incentives for doctors and hospitals and others to order "unnecessary" tests (including a reform of medical malpractice law so that lawyers cant argue "I sue the hospital for $$$$$ for failing to carry out  when carrying out  would have saved my clients life/heart/kidney/good looks/whatever")</p><p>6.Remove any laws and red tape that make it harder to start up a health fund. Making it easier to run one (and reducing the administrative costs) may encourage new players into the market who offer better value much the same as what companies like Jet Blue did for air travel)</p><p>7.Remove any rules/laws/etc that in any way restrict what health insurance companies are allowed to offer coverage for. If an insurance company wants to offer coverage for prescription glasses (for example), they should be allowed to do so.</p><p>8.Low income earners and the poor (who cant afford health insurance) would get subsidized cover. Not government run cover but money from the government paid to the individual to cover part or all of their health insurance costs</p><p>9.Health insurance companies would be banned from doing deals with specific hospitals or doctors (i.e. "you will only get coverage if you go to OUR hospital"). Further to this, companies that own health insurers would be prohibited from owning any operation involved in the provision of health care (e.g. hospitals, drug companies, medical equipment makers etc). Also, Health insurance companies would be banned from dictating treatment terms to doctors (i.e. if you want us to give coverage for this heart operation, you will do it the way we specify)</p><p>and 10.Health insurance companies would be required to disclose upfront how much they will pay on a given treatment before the treatment is carried out and they must pay up. No more cases of saying one thing before you go into hospital and then changing their mind and denying payment AFTER the patient has racked up the big medical bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is how I would fix the problems : 1.Eliminate company health plans ( the providers of these plans have little to no incentive to offer any actual benefits to the employees as the companies cant change to someone better due to lock-in contracts and the huge costs of changing , nor can the employees generally switch without paying a lot more ) 2.Give every citizen a certain amount of tax-free money they can use to buy health insurance .
i.e. the first $ x of their health insurance costs are tax free .
This makes up for the loss of company health plans ( which are generally tax free ) 3.Make it super-easy for people to switch to another health provider anytime they choose without penalty ( i.e .
if they switch to a similar plan from a different provider , the new provider cant suddenly deny coverage for all your pre-existing conditions just because you switched providers ) 4.All health care providers must charge the same amount for the same treatment no matter who is paying .
If a hospital charges $ 2000 for a procedure to one person , they must charge the same $ 2000 to everyone who gets the procedure ( no matter if its the government via medicare , a large health plan , a small insurance company , an individual paying out of pocket or whatever else ) .
Obviously they can increase the price anytime they want but again they need to charge the same new price to everyone5.Take away all incentives for doctors and hospitals and others to order " unnecessary " tests ( including a reform of medical malpractice law so that lawyers cant argue " I sue the hospital for $ $ $ $ $ for failing to carry out when carrying out would have saved my clients life/heart/kidney/good looks/whatever " ) 6.Remove any laws and red tape that make it harder to start up a health fund .
Making it easier to run one ( and reducing the administrative costs ) may encourage new players into the market who offer better value much the same as what companies like Jet Blue did for air travel ) 7.Remove any rules/laws/etc that in any way restrict what health insurance companies are allowed to offer coverage for .
If an insurance company wants to offer coverage for prescription glasses ( for example ) , they should be allowed to do so.8.Low income earners and the poor ( who cant afford health insurance ) would get subsidized cover .
Not government run cover but money from the government paid to the individual to cover part or all of their health insurance costs9.Health insurance companies would be banned from doing deals with specific hospitals or doctors ( i.e .
" you will only get coverage if you go to OUR hospital " ) .
Further to this , companies that own health insurers would be prohibited from owning any operation involved in the provision of health care ( e.g .
hospitals , drug companies , medical equipment makers etc ) .
Also , Health insurance companies would be banned from dictating treatment terms to doctors ( i.e .
if you want us to give coverage for this heart operation , you will do it the way we specify ) and 10.Health insurance companies would be required to disclose upfront how much they will pay on a given treatment before the treatment is carried out and they must pay up .
No more cases of saying one thing before you go into hospital and then changing their mind and denying payment AFTER the patient has racked up the big medical bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is how I would fix the problems:1.Eliminate company health plans (the providers of these plans have little to no incentive to offer any actual benefits to the employees as the companies cant change to someone better due to lock-in contracts and the huge costs of changing, nor can the employees generally switch without paying a lot more)2.Give every citizen a certain amount of tax-free money they can use to buy health insurance.
i.e. the first $x of their health insurance costs are tax free.
This makes up for the loss of company health plans (which are generally tax free)3.Make it super-easy for people to switch to another health provider anytime they choose without penalty (i.e.
if they switch to a similar plan from a different provider, the new provider cant suddenly deny coverage for all your pre-existing conditions just because you switched providers)4.All health care providers must charge the same amount for the same treatment no matter who is paying.
If a hospital charges $2000 for a procedure to one person, they must charge the same $2000 to everyone who gets the procedure (no matter if its the government via medicare, a large health plan, a small insurance company, an individual paying out of pocket or whatever else).
Obviously they can increase the price anytime they want but again they need to charge the same new price to everyone5.Take away all incentives for doctors and hospitals and others to order "unnecessary" tests (including a reform of medical malpractice law so that lawyers cant argue "I sue the hospital for $$$$$ for failing to carry out  when carrying out  would have saved my clients life/heart/kidney/good looks/whatever")6.Remove any laws and red tape that make it harder to start up a health fund.
Making it easier to run one (and reducing the administrative costs) may encourage new players into the market who offer better value much the same as what companies like Jet Blue did for air travel)7.Remove any rules/laws/etc that in any way restrict what health insurance companies are allowed to offer coverage for.
If an insurance company wants to offer coverage for prescription glasses (for example), they should be allowed to do so.8.Low income earners and the poor (who cant afford health insurance) would get subsidized cover.
Not government run cover but money from the government paid to the individual to cover part or all of their health insurance costs9.Health insurance companies would be banned from doing deals with specific hospitals or doctors (i.e.
"you will only get coverage if you go to OUR hospital").
Further to this, companies that own health insurers would be prohibited from owning any operation involved in the provision of health care (e.g.
hospitals, drug companies, medical equipment makers etc).
Also, Health insurance companies would be banned from dictating treatment terms to doctors (i.e.
if you want us to give coverage for this heart operation, you will do it the way we specify)and 10.Health insurance companies would be required to disclose upfront how much they will pay on a given treatment before the treatment is carried out and they must pay up.
No more cases of saying one thing before you go into hospital and then changing their mind and denying payment AFTER the patient has racked up the big medical bills.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025380</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1257676800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Insightful?  Yikes.  I guess any anti-religion comment here is an automatic +5 Insightful, but seriously... I don't see why people who have moral misgivings regarding abortion should be <i>required</i> to fund it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insightful ?
Yikes. I guess any anti-religion comment here is an automatic + 5 Insightful , but seriously... I do n't see why people who have moral misgivings regarding abortion should be required to fund it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insightful?
Yikes.  I guess any anti-religion comment here is an automatic +5 Insightful, but seriously... I don't see why people who have moral misgivings regarding abortion should be required to fund it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022458</id>
	<title>The image that sprang to mind</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1257700500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://notnews.today.com/2009/08/12/obama-fights-back-on-health-care-plan/trust-dr-obama-with-the-knife/" title="today.com">Trust Dr Obama with the knife!</a> [today.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Trust Dr Obama with the knife !
[ today.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trust Dr Obama with the knife!
[today.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023528</id>
	<title>Can ANYONE...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257706620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can ANYONE show me a SINGLE multi-trillion or even multi-billion dollar government program in ANY sector which has been run efficiently, without corruption, or fraud, instituted by either party, that has not had it's costs explode over time?</p><p>This will be like every other big government program. The costs will spiral upwards, and if anything is done about them, they will be dealt with just like high costs in any other program, by trimming services or raising taxes, not by fixing the inefficiencies. And once it is in place we will never be able to get rid of it or change it!</p><p>This health care reform is also a massive breeding ground for unintended consequences. If anyone thinks this has been thought through in the short amount of time it took to put this monstrosity together, pass me the crack pipe.</p><p>-Future Serf in servitude of the US Government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can ANYONE show me a SINGLE multi-trillion or even multi-billion dollar government program in ANY sector which has been run efficiently , without corruption , or fraud , instituted by either party , that has not had it 's costs explode over time ? This will be like every other big government program .
The costs will spiral upwards , and if anything is done about them , they will be dealt with just like high costs in any other program , by trimming services or raising taxes , not by fixing the inefficiencies .
And once it is in place we will never be able to get rid of it or change it ! This health care reform is also a massive breeding ground for unintended consequences .
If anyone thinks this has been thought through in the short amount of time it took to put this monstrosity together , pass me the crack pipe.-Future Serf in servitude of the US Government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can ANYONE show me a SINGLE multi-trillion or even multi-billion dollar government program in ANY sector which has been run efficiently, without corruption, or fraud, instituted by either party, that has not had it's costs explode over time?This will be like every other big government program.
The costs will spiral upwards, and if anything is done about them, they will be dealt with just like high costs in any other program, by trimming services or raising taxes, not by fixing the inefficiencies.
And once it is in place we will never be able to get rid of it or change it!This health care reform is also a massive breeding ground for unintended consequences.
If anyone thinks this has been thought through in the short amount of time it took to put this monstrosity together, pass me the crack pipe.-Future Serf in servitude of the US Government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028206</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257696540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I noticed that first thing. If people require support in order to provide for their children, why are we then denying them the right to NOT have children? You cannot expect people to be celibate and accidents do happen on top of contraception not being 100\%. I hope that part of the bill gets killed off along the way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I noticed that first thing .
If people require support in order to provide for their children , why are we then denying them the right to NOT have children ?
You can not expect people to be celibate and accidents do happen on top of contraception not being 100 \ % .
I hope that part of the bill gets killed off along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I noticed that first thing.
If people require support in order to provide for their children, why are we then denying them the right to NOT have children?
You cannot expect people to be celibate and accidents do happen on top of contraception not being 100\%.
I hope that part of the bill gets killed off along the way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025268</id>
	<title>Re:1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1257676020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know we live in interesting times when somebody tries to minimize the perceived cost of something by saying, "Hey, it's only $120,000,000,000 per year!"</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know we live in interesting times when somebody tries to minimize the perceived cost of something by saying , " Hey , it 's only $ 120,000,000,000 per year !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know we live in interesting times when somebody tries to minimize the perceived cost of something by saying, "Hey, it's only $120,000,000,000 per year!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022750</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo</title>
	<author>boudie2</author>
	<datestamp>1257702120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My understanding is that inflation was caused in the 1970s because of the United States rampant spending in Vietnam and subsequent dropping of the
gold standard. Not the Europeans "Socialism". In fact there seems to be a direct correlation between most problems in the world and the U.S.
Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, we'd like to say thank you
for all the insight and entertainment this issue has raised about your
country. Reagan a good President<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... indeed! We don't want health care
for our children! Hilarious, just hilarious. Keep up the good work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My understanding is that inflation was caused in the 1970s because of the United States rampant spending in Vietnam and subsequent dropping of the gold standard .
Not the Europeans " Socialism " .
In fact there seems to be a direct correlation between most problems in the world and the U.S . Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world , we 'd like to say thank you for all the insight and entertainment this issue has raised about your country .
Reagan a good President ... indeed ! We do n't want health care for our children !
Hilarious , just hilarious .
Keep up the good work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My understanding is that inflation was caused in the 1970s because of the United States rampant spending in Vietnam and subsequent dropping of the
gold standard.
Not the Europeans "Socialism".
In fact there seems to be a direct correlation between most problems in the world and the U.S.
Speaking on behalf of the rest of the world, we'd like to say thank you
for all the insight and entertainment this issue has raised about your
country.
Reagan a good President ... indeed! We don't want health care
for our children!
Hilarious, just hilarious.
Keep up the good work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027656</id>
	<title>Re:This is how freedom dies</title>
	<author>jbr439</author>
	<datestamp>1257691860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Gives new meaning to the phrase "live free or die"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>FTR, I live in Canada, and although the Canadian system definitely has its issues, I consider it superior to the US system in providing better average outcomes. There is a reason that no other industrialized country in the world has a system like that of the US (and it's not because these other countries hate freedom).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Gives new meaning to the phrase " live free or die " : - ) FTR , I live in Canada , and although the Canadian system definitely has its issues , I consider it superior to the US system in providing better average outcomes .
There is a reason that no other industrialized country in the world has a system like that of the US ( and it 's not because these other countries hate freedom ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gives new meaning to the phrase "live free or die" :-)FTR, I live in Canada, and although the Canadian system definitely has its issues, I consider it superior to the US system in providing better average outcomes.
There is a reason that no other industrialized country in the world has a system like that of the US (and it's not because these other countries hate freedom).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022114</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30034188</id>
	<title>Re:1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257787800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; Let's be clear: 1.2 Billion is the cost for 10 years, not 1 single upfront cost (like bailouts or emergency war funding supplementals)</p><p>I'd rather have it upfront. Do you know what the original projections were for Medicare?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Let 's be clear : 1.2 Billion is the cost for 10 years , not 1 single upfront cost ( like bailouts or emergency war funding supplementals ) I 'd rather have it upfront .
Do you know what the original projections were for Medicare ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Let's be clear: 1.2 Billion is the cost for 10 years, not 1 single upfront cost (like bailouts or emergency war funding supplementals)I'd rather have it upfront.
Do you know what the original projections were for Medicare?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021316</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257692880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!!</p></div></blockquote><p>Course, that didn't really happen.  What happened is that after the Stimulus was passed, the phrase "create three (not two) million jobs" magically morphed into "create <i>or save</i> three million jobs".
</p><p>So far, rather than "create or save three million jobs", they've manage to "create or save about 650,00 jobs".  And it took some fascinating accounting to do that much.
</p><p>Like count anyone who got a pay raise with stimulus money as a "job saved"....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years , and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS !
! Course , that did n't really happen .
What happened is that after the Stimulus was passed , the phrase " create three ( not two ) million jobs " magically morphed into " create or save three million jobs " .
So far , rather than " create or save three million jobs " , they 've manage to " create or save about 650,00 jobs " .
And it took some fascinating accounting to do that much .
Like count anyone who got a pay raise with stimulus money as a " job saved " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!
!Course, that didn't really happen.
What happened is that after the Stimulus was passed, the phrase "create three (not two) million jobs" magically morphed into "create or save three million jobs".
So far, rather than "create or save three million jobs", they've manage to "create or save about 650,00 jobs".
And it took some fascinating accounting to do that much.
Like count anyone who got a pay raise with stimulus money as a "job saved"....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30084758</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258108620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Young and healthy is a temporary condition.  When do you plan on starting up a pension?  When you're 50?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Young and healthy is a temporary condition .
When do you plan on starting up a pension ?
When you 're 50 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Young and healthy is a temporary condition.
When do you plan on starting up a pension?
When you're 50?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024480</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As I understand it, they are not compelled.  They are fined in the form of tax differentials.  The 16th Amendment makes income tax constitutional.  I think the Supreme Court has upheld that differentials in taxation is permitted (tax break for investment, etc.).  Perhaps this is the argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As I understand it , they are not compelled .
They are fined in the form of tax differentials .
The 16th Amendment makes income tax constitutional .
I think the Supreme Court has upheld that differentials in taxation is permitted ( tax break for investment , etc. ) .
Perhaps this is the argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I understand it, they are not compelled.
They are fined in the form of tax differentials.
The 16th Amendment makes income tax constitutional.
I think the Supreme Court has upheld that differentials in taxation is permitted (tax break for investment, etc.).
Perhaps this is the argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024678</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>demachina</author>
	<datestamp>1257672000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its in the same section that allows income tax, the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, arresting people and holding them indefinitely without access to a lawyer, torturing people, unlimited spying on all citizens without a warrant and using Internet Commerce as an excuse for Federal laws against just about everything.</p><p>Unfortunately we stepped on to this slippery slope a long time ago.  The framers of the Constitution did their best to foresee and prevent power grabs by the government, especially the Federal government, but starting with the Civil War the states and the people have lost to the behemoth in Washingto D.C. ever since.</p><p>The frames simply couldn't do anything to prevent power hungry incompetents from being elected to Congress and the White House for extended periods, courts being packed with ideologues appointed by those incompetent, or the fact the American people either don't care about their government, or even if they care wont ever do anything in an organized or sustained way to fix anything.</p><p>At the moment the only nonviolatent solution is to start a new party and put both Democrats and Republicans out of power, and keep the new party from being completely corrupted the way the two old one are.  This is nearly impossible in practice though, the Progressives and Bull Moose parties that sprung up in the early 1900's last time we had rampant corruption and wealth concentration are the closest model to study if you are interested.</p><p>Regrettably politics and government inevitably devolves in to the party with power taking things from one group and giving it to another.  Senior citizens, for example, are an extremely powerful group, which is why are getting 20-30 years of Medicare and Social Security though they paid in almost nothing in taxes to those programs.  Those payroll taxes were tiny when they worked, since most people didn't live much past 65. They were jacked to 12.5\% in the early 1980's.  The end result is young workers are being taxed in to the ground to support today's seniors, with a high probability both programs will be bankrupt when those younger workers retire so they will get nothing back, unless the pyramid scheme continues and they tax even younger workers completely in to the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its in the same section that allows income tax , the Federal Reserve , Social Security , Medicare , arresting people and holding them indefinitely without access to a lawyer , torturing people , unlimited spying on all citizens without a warrant and using Internet Commerce as an excuse for Federal laws against just about everything.Unfortunately we stepped on to this slippery slope a long time ago .
The framers of the Constitution did their best to foresee and prevent power grabs by the government , especially the Federal government , but starting with the Civil War the states and the people have lost to the behemoth in Washingto D.C. ever since.The frames simply could n't do anything to prevent power hungry incompetents from being elected to Congress and the White House for extended periods , courts being packed with ideologues appointed by those incompetent , or the fact the American people either do n't care about their government , or even if they care wont ever do anything in an organized or sustained way to fix anything.At the moment the only nonviolatent solution is to start a new party and put both Democrats and Republicans out of power , and keep the new party from being completely corrupted the way the two old one are .
This is nearly impossible in practice though , the Progressives and Bull Moose parties that sprung up in the early 1900 's last time we had rampant corruption and wealth concentration are the closest model to study if you are interested.Regrettably politics and government inevitably devolves in to the party with power taking things from one group and giving it to another .
Senior citizens , for example , are an extremely powerful group , which is why are getting 20-30 years of Medicare and Social Security though they paid in almost nothing in taxes to those programs .
Those payroll taxes were tiny when they worked , since most people did n't live much past 65 .
They were jacked to 12.5 \ % in the early 1980 's .
The end result is young workers are being taxed in to the ground to support today 's seniors , with a high probability both programs will be bankrupt when those younger workers retire so they will get nothing back , unless the pyramid scheme continues and they tax even younger workers completely in to the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its in the same section that allows income tax, the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, arresting people and holding them indefinitely without access to a lawyer, torturing people, unlimited spying on all citizens without a warrant and using Internet Commerce as an excuse for Federal laws against just about everything.Unfortunately we stepped on to this slippery slope a long time ago.
The framers of the Constitution did their best to foresee and prevent power grabs by the government, especially the Federal government, but starting with the Civil War the states and the people have lost to the behemoth in Washingto D.C. ever since.The frames simply couldn't do anything to prevent power hungry incompetents from being elected to Congress and the White House for extended periods, courts being packed with ideologues appointed by those incompetent, or the fact the American people either don't care about their government, or even if they care wont ever do anything in an organized or sustained way to fix anything.At the moment the only nonviolatent solution is to start a new party and put both Democrats and Republicans out of power, and keep the new party from being completely corrupted the way the two old one are.
This is nearly impossible in practice though, the Progressives and Bull Moose parties that sprung up in the early 1900's last time we had rampant corruption and wealth concentration are the closest model to study if you are interested.Regrettably politics and government inevitably devolves in to the party with power taking things from one group and giving it to another.
Senior citizens, for example, are an extremely powerful group, which is why are getting 20-30 years of Medicare and Social Security though they paid in almost nothing in taxes to those programs.
Those payroll taxes were tiny when they worked, since most people didn't live much past 65.
They were jacked to 12.5\% in the early 1980's.
The end result is young workers are being taxed in to the ground to support today's seniors, with a high probability both programs will be bankrupt when those younger workers retire so they will get nothing back, unless the pyramid scheme continues and they tax even younger workers completely in to the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021484</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>\_LORAX\_</author>
	<datestamp>1257693960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CfC was a failure because it was approximately 15\% efficient ( Rebates $4/k vehicle, actual cost to the govt $24k/vehicle ).  For every dollar that was used in rebates, another 7 was overhead and other services that did not improve the economy.  It was a huge cash giveaway with little, if any, long term positive benefit for the economy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CfC was a failure because it was approximately 15 \ % efficient ( Rebates $ 4/k vehicle , actual cost to the govt $ 24k/vehicle ) .
For every dollar that was used in rebates , another 7 was overhead and other services that did not improve the economy .
It was a huge cash giveaway with little , if any , long term positive benefit for the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CfC was a failure because it was approximately 15\% efficient ( Rebates $4/k vehicle, actual cost to the govt $24k/vehicle ).
For every dollar that was used in rebates, another 7 was overhead and other services that did not improve the economy.
It was a huge cash giveaway with little, if any, long term positive benefit for the economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30036030</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1257794940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When the CfC thing was getting pushed big time, my roomate teamed up with his dad to clean, restore, and retro fit the old 4 banger Mitsubishi engine in a beat to crap old pickup truck that had been sitting in a yard for 5 years. They rebuilt the suspension, scavenged a new bed and seats from a junkyard, and even jury rigged a catalytic converter on the old piece of crap. Six months later, my roomate has what is essentially a new truck (all of the internals) with a dinged old body and some scratches. It gets better mileage than his Toyota did (which was a '94, the restored Datsun is a '79) and, after running some smog tests, apparently has cleaner emissions. The whole process cost him about $2,000 and 6 months worth of work. Even more valuable than the money he saved (instead of going through the CfC program and buying a new truck/car) was the experience he earned rebuilding an entire vehicle. Him and I go around helping all of our friends work on all of their vehicles now and I am learning a lot as well. It seems to me that recycling an old clunker was quite a bit more productive than just buying a new car (best part, the money he saved he is using to put himself through college...partially).
<br> <br>
The only reason I bring this up is because I don't see this local-level kind of gumption too much anymore. I wonder how much of an impact on the United States healthcare fiasco it would have if more people started taking the time to learn some field first aid and basic hygiene/disease prevention and treatment. Better yet, I wonder if it would have much of an impact if regular run of the mill folks started taking some CPR classes and other such things. I know that it wouldn't be the end all be all of healthcare...in the end no amount of local-level gumption is going to provide long term cancer treatments. Still, it would be nice to see Americans actually working towards solving national level problems in their own communities as well....just a thought....</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the CfC thing was getting pushed big time , my roomate teamed up with his dad to clean , restore , and retro fit the old 4 banger Mitsubishi engine in a beat to crap old pickup truck that had been sitting in a yard for 5 years .
They rebuilt the suspension , scavenged a new bed and seats from a junkyard , and even jury rigged a catalytic converter on the old piece of crap .
Six months later , my roomate has what is essentially a new truck ( all of the internals ) with a dinged old body and some scratches .
It gets better mileage than his Toyota did ( which was a '94 , the restored Datsun is a '79 ) and , after running some smog tests , apparently has cleaner emissions .
The whole process cost him about $ 2,000 and 6 months worth of work .
Even more valuable than the money he saved ( instead of going through the CfC program and buying a new truck/car ) was the experience he earned rebuilding an entire vehicle .
Him and I go around helping all of our friends work on all of their vehicles now and I am learning a lot as well .
It seems to me that recycling an old clunker was quite a bit more productive than just buying a new car ( best part , the money he saved he is using to put himself through college...partially ) .
The only reason I bring this up is because I do n't see this local-level kind of gumption too much anymore .
I wonder how much of an impact on the United States healthcare fiasco it would have if more people started taking the time to learn some field first aid and basic hygiene/disease prevention and treatment .
Better yet , I wonder if it would have much of an impact if regular run of the mill folks started taking some CPR classes and other such things .
I know that it would n't be the end all be all of healthcare...in the end no amount of local-level gumption is going to provide long term cancer treatments .
Still , it would be nice to see Americans actually working towards solving national level problems in their own communities as well....just a thought... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the CfC thing was getting pushed big time, my roomate teamed up with his dad to clean, restore, and retro fit the old 4 banger Mitsubishi engine in a beat to crap old pickup truck that had been sitting in a yard for 5 years.
They rebuilt the suspension, scavenged a new bed and seats from a junkyard, and even jury rigged a catalytic converter on the old piece of crap.
Six months later, my roomate has what is essentially a new truck (all of the internals) with a dinged old body and some scratches.
It gets better mileage than his Toyota did (which was a '94, the restored Datsun is a '79) and, after running some smog tests, apparently has cleaner emissions.
The whole process cost him about $2,000 and 6 months worth of work.
Even more valuable than the money he saved (instead of going through the CfC program and buying a new truck/car) was the experience he earned rebuilding an entire vehicle.
Him and I go around helping all of our friends work on all of their vehicles now and I am learning a lot as well.
It seems to me that recycling an old clunker was quite a bit more productive than just buying a new car (best part, the money he saved he is using to put himself through college...partially).
The only reason I bring this up is because I don't see this local-level kind of gumption too much anymore.
I wonder how much of an impact on the United States healthcare fiasco it would have if more people started taking the time to learn some field first aid and basic hygiene/disease prevention and treatment.
Better yet, I wonder if it would have much of an impact if regular run of the mill folks started taking some CPR classes and other such things.
I know that it wouldn't be the end all be all of healthcare...in the end no amount of local-level gumption is going to provide long term cancer treatments.
Still, it would be nice to see Americans actually working towards solving national level problems in their own communities as well....just a thought....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Eightbitgnosis</author>
	<datestamp>1257694860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>We destroyed perfectly working cars and then gave out freshly printed money to replace them. This is fiscally sound?</htmltext>
<tokenext>We destroyed perfectly working cars and then gave out freshly printed money to replace them .
This is fiscally sound ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We destroyed perfectly working cars and then gave out freshly printed money to replace them.
This is fiscally sound?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026832</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget ... privacy destroying</title>
	<author>Nithendil</author>
	<datestamp>1257686280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a doctor I find the opposite. I understand your concern about insurance companies and hell, if I could have it my way the insurance companies wouldn't even exist. But the amount of frustration I have on a daily basis in just dealing with records drives not just me but I'm sure a significant amount of doctors crazy. Here is a typical scenario: a new patient comes to me a with a problem that they have seen other people for but have not gotten satisfactory results. However, they are hazy on the names of medications and tests. I don't want to waste anyone's time or money so before I do anything I need to read those records. Hopefully the patient remembers what doctor or clinic they saw (a certain percentage can't)  so we can send a records request. If this is from a hospital this could take weeks, or from a typical clinic I will have to send over multiple requests before I'm sent something back. All the while I'm twiddling my thumbs instead of helping the patient. I'm not sure a universal records system would be a panacea but the system we have sucks.</p><p>Please, everyone, when you see a new doctor, bring your medications, lab results (you should request copies and keep this information anyways), and your previous records.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a doctor I find the opposite .
I understand your concern about insurance companies and hell , if I could have it my way the insurance companies would n't even exist .
But the amount of frustration I have on a daily basis in just dealing with records drives not just me but I 'm sure a significant amount of doctors crazy .
Here is a typical scenario : a new patient comes to me a with a problem that they have seen other people for but have not gotten satisfactory results .
However , they are hazy on the names of medications and tests .
I do n't want to waste anyone 's time or money so before I do anything I need to read those records .
Hopefully the patient remembers what doctor or clinic they saw ( a certain percentage ca n't ) so we can send a records request .
If this is from a hospital this could take weeks , or from a typical clinic I will have to send over multiple requests before I 'm sent something back .
All the while I 'm twiddling my thumbs instead of helping the patient .
I 'm not sure a universal records system would be a panacea but the system we have sucks.Please , everyone , when you see a new doctor , bring your medications , lab results ( you should request copies and keep this information anyways ) , and your previous records .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a doctor I find the opposite.
I understand your concern about insurance companies and hell, if I could have it my way the insurance companies wouldn't even exist.
But the amount of frustration I have on a daily basis in just dealing with records drives not just me but I'm sure a significant amount of doctors crazy.
Here is a typical scenario: a new patient comes to me a with a problem that they have seen other people for but have not gotten satisfactory results.
However, they are hazy on the names of medications and tests.
I don't want to waste anyone's time or money so before I do anything I need to read those records.
Hopefully the patient remembers what doctor or clinic they saw (a certain percentage can't)  so we can send a records request.
If this is from a hospital this could take weeks, or from a typical clinic I will have to send over multiple requests before I'm sent something back.
All the while I'm twiddling my thumbs instead of helping the patient.
I'm not sure a universal records system would be a panacea but the system we have sucks.Please, everyone, when you see a new doctor, bring your medications, lab results (you should request copies and keep this information anyways), and your previous records.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560</id>
	<title>Socialism is great!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257694440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until you run out of other peoples money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until you run out of other peoples money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until you run out of other peoples money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021514</id>
	<title>Re:Oh sweet</title>
	<author>amiga3D</author>
	<datestamp>1257694200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>STOP!  Illegal use of logic!  This will not be tolerated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>STOP !
Illegal use of logic !
This will not be tolerated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>STOP!
Illegal use of logic!
This will not be tolerated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021174</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo</title>
	<author>spankus</author>
	<datestamp>1257692100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or how about the fact that government is responsible for the state of healthcare in the country right now!<br> <br>

<a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/understanding\_the\_cause\_of\_hea.html" title="americanthinker.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/understanding\_the\_cause\_of\_hea.html</a> [americanthinker.com]  <br> <br>

They're the ones that started cost inflation in the 1970's that has gotten us to this point.  They don't even know they screwed it up...and we expect them to fix it?
<br> <br>
It makes me think of the classic demotivator: <a href="http://www.despair.com/government.html" title="despair.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.despair.com/government.html</a> [despair.com] <p>
Sigh.
</p><p>
Oh well, at least we don't have any money to pay for it....(not that it matters, apparently)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or how about the fact that government is responsible for the state of healthcare in the country right now !
http : //www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/understanding \ _the \ _cause \ _of \ _hea.html [ americanthinker.com ] They 're the ones that started cost inflation in the 1970 's that has gotten us to this point .
They do n't even know they screwed it up...and we expect them to fix it ?
It makes me think of the classic demotivator : http : //www.despair.com/government.html [ despair.com ] Sigh .
Oh well , at least we do n't have any money to pay for it.... ( not that it matters , apparently )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or how about the fact that government is responsible for the state of healthcare in the country right now!
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/understanding\_the\_cause\_of\_hea.html [americanthinker.com]   

They're the ones that started cost inflation in the 1970's that has gotten us to this point.
They don't even know they screwed it up...and we expect them to fix it?
It makes me think of the classic demotivator: http://www.despair.com/government.html [despair.com] 
Sigh.
Oh well, at least we don't have any money to pay for it....(not that it matters, apparently)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022076</id>
	<title>A More Obvious Solution</title>
	<author>flyneye</author>
	<datestamp>1257698040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> A more obvious solution would be to regulate Medical and Insurance industries. Why not? Other industries are regulated. The same old argument about R &amp; D shutting down or going offshore doesn't wash as no one is going to exclude the U.S. as a market for fear of industrial embargo affecting it on some other level.<br>This is just another Democrat bid at buying votes and gaining control over previously free people.<br>Quit voting for Democrats and Republicans. Quit sticking your fingers in light sockets and meat grinders. Options outside these are plentiful yet invisible due to the same old blinders and rumours like " there are no other sound choices. The complete truth is exactly the opposite. Other fatal mistakes in political philosophy include assuming the majority is right,  assuming the majority are informed ( only by mass distribution of disinformation) , assuming that since these parties have been in power too long they have the only workable feasible solutions and that we are a democracy. If you haven't figured out any of this yet , you aren't informed enough to vote on a flavor of popcicle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A more obvious solution would be to regulate Medical and Insurance industries .
Why not ?
Other industries are regulated .
The same old argument about R &amp; D shutting down or going offshore does n't wash as no one is going to exclude the U.S. as a market for fear of industrial embargo affecting it on some other level.This is just another Democrat bid at buying votes and gaining control over previously free people.Quit voting for Democrats and Republicans .
Quit sticking your fingers in light sockets and meat grinders .
Options outside these are plentiful yet invisible due to the same old blinders and rumours like " there are no other sound choices .
The complete truth is exactly the opposite .
Other fatal mistakes in political philosophy include assuming the majority is right , assuming the majority are informed ( only by mass distribution of disinformation ) , assuming that since these parties have been in power too long they have the only workable feasible solutions and that we are a democracy .
If you have n't figured out any of this yet , you are n't informed enough to vote on a flavor of popcicle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A more obvious solution would be to regulate Medical and Insurance industries.
Why not?
Other industries are regulated.
The same old argument about R &amp; D shutting down or going offshore doesn't wash as no one is going to exclude the U.S. as a market for fear of industrial embargo affecting it on some other level.This is just another Democrat bid at buying votes and gaining control over previously free people.Quit voting for Democrats and Republicans.
Quit sticking your fingers in light sockets and meat grinders.
Options outside these are plentiful yet invisible due to the same old blinders and rumours like " there are no other sound choices.
The complete truth is exactly the opposite.
Other fatal mistakes in political philosophy include assuming the majority is right,  assuming the majority are informed ( only by mass distribution of disinformation) , assuming that since these parties have been in power too long they have the only workable feasible solutions and that we are a democracy.
If you haven't figured out any of this yet , you aren't informed enough to vote on a flavor of popcicle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021010</id>
	<title>This is how freedom dies</title>
	<author>Gothmolly</author>
	<datestamp>1257690720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To thunderous applause.</p><p>I guess we're all in the crab bucket now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To thunderous applause.I guess we 're all in the crab bucket now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To thunderous applause.I guess we're all in the crab bucket now.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021160</id>
	<title>The supreme cout will rule it unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Danathar</author>
	<datestamp>1257692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just my prediction, but I think it will be taken to court and ruled unconstitutional (since the court is still majority conservative)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just my prediction , but I think it will be taken to court and ruled unconstitutional ( since the court is still majority conservative )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just my prediction, but I think it will be taken to court and ruled unconstitutional (since the court is still majority conservative)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026306</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257683100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?"</p><p>I dunno. Aren't car owners in a very similar position with regard to third-party insurance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance ?
" I dunno .
Are n't car owners in a very similar position with regard to third-party insurance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?
"I dunno.
Aren't car owners in a very similar position with regard to third-party insurance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022664</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257701700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>CfC helped people with enough money to buy new cars. The homebuyers credit helps people with enough money to buy homes.</p><p>These programs help no on who actually needs help, and are only there to support company incompetent executives and shareholders who made bad investments. CfC even did a lot of environmental damage, since the 'clunkers' were not used for parts, and the new cars took more energy and resources to make than the new cars will ever save.</p><p>The health care bill will do the same thing. Maybe some people will get help, but mostly, insurance companies will benefit.</p><p>I wish it wasn't so, but anyone who thinks the government works for the people and not the people with the money needs a history lesson.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>CfC helped people with enough money to buy new cars .
The homebuyers credit helps people with enough money to buy homes.These programs help no on who actually needs help , and are only there to support company incompetent executives and shareholders who made bad investments .
CfC even did a lot of environmental damage , since the 'clunkers ' were not used for parts , and the new cars took more energy and resources to make than the new cars will ever save.The health care bill will do the same thing .
Maybe some people will get help , but mostly , insurance companies will benefit.I wish it was n't so , but anyone who thinks the government works for the people and not the people with the money needs a history lesson .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CfC helped people with enough money to buy new cars.
The homebuyers credit helps people with enough money to buy homes.These programs help no on who actually needs help, and are only there to support company incompetent executives and shareholders who made bad investments.
CfC even did a lot of environmental damage, since the 'clunkers' were not used for parts, and the new cars took more energy and resources to make than the new cars will ever save.The health care bill will do the same thing.
Maybe some people will get help, but mostly, insurance companies will benefit.I wish it wasn't so, but anyone who thinks the government works for the people and not the people with the money needs a history lesson.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257690480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Cash for Clunkers? Yes, that was a total failure. It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!! Oh my god, they can't get anything right!<br> <br>Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Cash for Clunkers ?
Yes , that was a total failure .
It 's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years , and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS ! !
Oh my god , they ca n't get anything right !
Note that I do n't really like the CfC idea , but it 's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cash for Clunkers?
Yes, that was a total failure.
It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!!
Oh my god, they can't get anything right!
Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022004</id>
	<title>Re:1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1257697500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Additionally, <i>the insurance industry itself</i> <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2232310/pagenum/all/" title="slate.com">published</a> [slate.com] a study (pretty much shooting itself in the foot in the process) showing that the opportunity costs of <i>not</i> passing healthcare reform would greatly exceed that $1.2T figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , the insurance industry itself published [ slate.com ] a study ( pretty much shooting itself in the foot in the process ) showing that the opportunity costs of not passing healthcare reform would greatly exceed that $ 1.2T figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, the insurance industry itself published [slate.com] a study (pretty much shooting itself in the foot in the process) showing that the opportunity costs of not passing healthcare reform would greatly exceed that $1.2T figure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020858</id>
	<title>I think I can I think I can</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257689040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe the US will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in actually providing medical care to its citizens, instead of taking the, "find your own care" attitude.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe the US will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in actually providing medical care to its citizens , instead of taking the , " find your own care " attitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe the US will finally join the rest of the industrialized world in actually providing medical care to its citizens, instead of taking the, "find your own care" attitude.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026280</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257682920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?  On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition.  We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.</p></div><p>http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/heathcarereformisconstitutional</p><p>"The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In the area of economic activities, &ldquo;substantial effect&rdquo; can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country." Dr. Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California-Irvine Law School Dean</p><p>Specifically Article 1 Section 8</p><p>This particular essay goes over the various constitutional issues with a bit more depth. http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/09/827 by a Carson Holloway an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska at Omaha</p><p>Mr Holloway's tone is rather anti-reform for several reasons. Those reasons in no particular order; Our national government was formed with-out the power to provide for the common good in every sector of life, what is not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution is the realm of State powers. The exceptions allowed to individuals refusing medical care for religious reasons. And a more subtle point, something too the effect of "haste makes waste".<br>But even Holloway concedes that such a thing as a universal mandate is Constitutional.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance ?
On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition .
We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.http : //www.njdc.org/blog/post/heathcarereformisconstitutional " The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce .
In the area of economic activities ,    substantial effect    can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country .
" Dr. Erwin Chemerinsky , University of California-Irvine Law School DeanSpecifically Article 1 Section 8This particular essay goes over the various constitutional issues with a bit more depth .
http : //www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/09/827 by a Carson Holloway an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska at OmahaMr Holloway 's tone is rather anti-reform for several reasons .
Those reasons in no particular order ; Our national government was formed with-out the power to provide for the common good in every sector of life , what is not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution is the realm of State powers .
The exceptions allowed to individuals refusing medical care for religious reasons .
And a more subtle point , something too the effect of " haste makes waste " .But even Holloway concedes that such a thing as a universal mandate is Constitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?
On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition.
We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.http://www.njdc.org/blog/post/heathcarereformisconstitutional"The Supreme Court has held that this includes authority to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
In the area of economic activities, “substantial effect” can be found based on the cumulative impact of the activity across the country.
" Dr. Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California-Irvine Law School DeanSpecifically Article 1 Section 8This particular essay goes over the various constitutional issues with a bit more depth.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2009/09/827 by a Carson Holloway an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Nebraska at OmahaMr Holloway's tone is rather anti-reform for several reasons.
Those reasons in no particular order; Our national government was formed with-out the power to provide for the common good in every sector of life, what is not delegated to the Federal Government by the Constitution is the realm of State powers.
The exceptions allowed to individuals refusing medical care for religious reasons.
And a more subtle point, something too the effect of "haste makes waste".But even Holloway concedes that such a thing as a universal mandate is Constitutional.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022000</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257697500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remember that the bills passed under the republican presidents were all created by the democrats and normally slipped in on riders.
I would say ALL of the bills passed were never read by anybody except the people who wrote them. When will the people insist that the legislators READ THE BILLS before voting on them. Our government is sham and all  legislators are in it for themselves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember that the bills passed under the republican presidents were all created by the democrats and normally slipped in on riders .
I would say ALL of the bills passed were never read by anybody except the people who wrote them .
When will the people insist that the legislators READ THE BILLS before voting on them .
Our government is sham and all legislators are in it for themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember that the bills passed under the republican presidents were all created by the democrats and normally slipped in on riders.
I would say ALL of the bills passed were never read by anybody except the people who wrote them.
When will the people insist that the legislators READ THE BILLS before voting on them.
Our government is sham and all  legislators are in it for themselves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021270</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257692640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except in this case, measurements of consumption and production are very obscure.</p><p>People will 'consume' healthcare when they go to the hospital or see a doctor. Yes, there is a small hypochondriac percentage of the population that will abuse this privilege, but for the most part, people will only go to the hospital when they are sick. I can't imagine wanting to disrupt my schedule to go sit in a waiting room just because I don't have to pay for it. That's absurd.</p><p>The population becomes more productive as a whole when they don't have to worry about the day-to-day problems of food and shelter. It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.</p><p>If the default state of people was "sick," then yes: they can certainly consume more healthcare than they produce. For an example of this, consider the disabled and the elderly. However, the default state of most of the population is "healthy." This means that when you do get sick, treatment can be had and you can return to your default, healthy (productive) state quicker. If you're sick, and your insurance doesn't cover your condition, you can't return to work until you've had it treated. If you can't afford treatment, then you're an unproductive member of society, no matter how badly you want to get back to work.</p><p>This is why nationalized healthcare works. Everyone pays taxes to support the health care system, but not everyone is sick all the time. When you are sick (on occasion), the taxes you have paid and that others have paid cover your costs. When you are healthy (most of the time), you're providing the same safety net that you enjoy to everyone else. And before everyone screams "socialism," note that socialism is not all bad. Military, fire, police, community centres, libraries: all of these are iconic images of American life, and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually, if not immediately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except in this case , measurements of consumption and production are very obscure.People will 'consume ' healthcare when they go to the hospital or see a doctor .
Yes , there is a small hypochondriac percentage of the population that will abuse this privilege , but for the most part , people will only go to the hospital when they are sick .
I ca n't imagine wanting to disrupt my schedule to go sit in a waiting room just because I do n't have to pay for it .
That 's absurd.The population becomes more productive as a whole when they do n't have to worry about the day-to-day problems of food and shelter .
It 's Maslow 's Hierarchy of Needs.If the default state of people was " sick , " then yes : they can certainly consume more healthcare than they produce .
For an example of this , consider the disabled and the elderly .
However , the default state of most of the population is " healthy .
" This means that when you do get sick , treatment can be had and you can return to your default , healthy ( productive ) state quicker .
If you 're sick , and your insurance does n't cover your condition , you ca n't return to work until you 've had it treated .
If you ca n't afford treatment , then you 're an unproductive member of society , no matter how badly you want to get back to work.This is why nationalized healthcare works .
Everyone pays taxes to support the health care system , but not everyone is sick all the time .
When you are sick ( on occasion ) , the taxes you have paid and that others have paid cover your costs .
When you are healthy ( most of the time ) , you 're providing the same safety net that you enjoy to everyone else .
And before everyone screams " socialism , " note that socialism is not all bad .
Military , fire , police , community centres , libraries : all of these are iconic images of American life , and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually , if not immediately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except in this case, measurements of consumption and production are very obscure.People will 'consume' healthcare when they go to the hospital or see a doctor.
Yes, there is a small hypochondriac percentage of the population that will abuse this privilege, but for the most part, people will only go to the hospital when they are sick.
I can't imagine wanting to disrupt my schedule to go sit in a waiting room just because I don't have to pay for it.
That's absurd.The population becomes more productive as a whole when they don't have to worry about the day-to-day problems of food and shelter.
It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.If the default state of people was "sick," then yes: they can certainly consume more healthcare than they produce.
For an example of this, consider the disabled and the elderly.
However, the default state of most of the population is "healthy.
" This means that when you do get sick, treatment can be had and you can return to your default, healthy (productive) state quicker.
If you're sick, and your insurance doesn't cover your condition, you can't return to work until you've had it treated.
If you can't afford treatment, then you're an unproductive member of society, no matter how badly you want to get back to work.This is why nationalized healthcare works.
Everyone pays taxes to support the health care system, but not everyone is sick all the time.
When you are sick (on occasion), the taxes you have paid and that others have paid cover your costs.
When you are healthy (most of the time), you're providing the same safety net that you enjoy to everyone else.
And before everyone screams "socialism," note that socialism is not all bad.
Military, fire, police, community centres, libraries: all of these are iconic images of American life, and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually, if not immediately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021216</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257692340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been in the market for a new car recently. I've had three separate salesmen tell me that (a) cash for clunkers made them very busy for a while but (b) things have been DEAD -- far slower than before -- ever since.  A one-time purchase doesn't create productivity long term like a job would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been in the market for a new car recently .
I 've had three separate salesmen tell me that ( a ) cash for clunkers made them very busy for a while but ( b ) things have been DEAD -- far slower than before -- ever since .
A one-time purchase does n't create productivity long term like a job would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been in the market for a new car recently.
I've had three separate salesmen tell me that (a) cash for clunkers made them very busy for a while but (b) things have been DEAD -- far slower than before -- ever since.
A one-time purchase doesn't create productivity long term like a job would.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023060</id>
	<title>Re:Socialism is great!</title>
	<author>drsquare</author>
	<datestamp>1257703860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike capitalism, which never runs out of other people's money. There always seems to be plenty left in the pot for its endless, inevitable bailouts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike capitalism , which never runs out of other people 's money .
There always seems to be plenty left in the pot for its endless , inevitable bailouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike capitalism, which never runs out of other people's money.
There always seems to be plenty left in the pot for its endless, inevitable bailouts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022286</id>
	<title>Not soclialist -- if anything this bill is fascist</title>
	<author>pkbarbiedoll</author>
	<datestamp>1257699300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Few people will actually be covered under the reduced "public option".    This bill was another payout to corporate America, on the taxpayers' dime.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Few people will actually be covered under the reduced " public option " .
This bill was another payout to corporate America , on the taxpayers ' dime .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Few people will actually be covered under the reduced "public option".
This bill was another payout to corporate America, on the taxpayers' dime.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021428</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30085884</id>
	<title>Re:How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258123080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I vote "yea"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I vote " yea "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I vote "yea"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021924</id>
	<title>Re:I think I can I think I can</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1257696960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not particularly happy about the bill in its current form (little funding for women's health, too many remain uninsured), but it's a bloody huge step in the right direction, and hopefully one of many.</p><p>With a little luck, hopefully the legislative environment will remain conducive to working the kinks out of the system.  It seems as though a series of small steps is much more palatable to the American people and government.</p><p>Personally, this debate hasn't been about helping the uninsured, universal coverage, or the public option.  Frankly, all three of those things got trashed by the legislature.  On the other hand, spiraling costs and declining quality of care are <i>huge</i> issues that need to be addressed, and effect a majority of the population.  I'm a bit upset that these aspects haven't been covered by the media.   The rationalization of malpractice litigation in particular has barely received any coverage, despite being the darling of the conservatives, as well as a great many democrats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not particularly happy about the bill in its current form ( little funding for women 's health , too many remain uninsured ) , but it 's a bloody huge step in the right direction , and hopefully one of many.With a little luck , hopefully the legislative environment will remain conducive to working the kinks out of the system .
It seems as though a series of small steps is much more palatable to the American people and government.Personally , this debate has n't been about helping the uninsured , universal coverage , or the public option .
Frankly , all three of those things got trashed by the legislature .
On the other hand , spiraling costs and declining quality of care are huge issues that need to be addressed , and effect a majority of the population .
I 'm a bit upset that these aspects have n't been covered by the media .
The rationalization of malpractice litigation in particular has barely received any coverage , despite being the darling of the conservatives , as well as a great many democrats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not particularly happy about the bill in its current form (little funding for women's health, too many remain uninsured), but it's a bloody huge step in the right direction, and hopefully one of many.With a little luck, hopefully the legislative environment will remain conducive to working the kinks out of the system.
It seems as though a series of small steps is much more palatable to the American people and government.Personally, this debate hasn't been about helping the uninsured, universal coverage, or the public option.
Frankly, all three of those things got trashed by the legislature.
On the other hand, spiraling costs and declining quality of care are huge issues that need to be addressed, and effect a majority of the population.
I'm a bit upset that these aspects haven't been covered by the media.
The rationalization of malpractice litigation in particular has barely received any coverage, despite being the darling of the conservatives, as well as a great many democrats.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025414</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257677040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides both that Congress may "regulate Commerce... among the several States" and that it may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."</p><p>The first provision is known as the Commerce Clause, and has most recently been interpreted (in United\_States v. Lopez) to mean that Congress may make any laws regarding:<br>1.  the channels of interstate commerce,<br>2.  the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and<br>3.  activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerce</p><p>Therefore all that Congress needs to do it prove that uninsured people have a substantial affect on interstate commerce, an impact that they have a right to prevent.  That shouldn't be hard to prove; numerous studies have measured a significant negative impact of the uninsured on insurance premiums, business and the economy as a whole.  Further, being insured is linked to increased mortality (<a href="http://www.monthlyreview.org/0903navarro.htm" title="monthlyreview.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.monthlyreview.org/0903navarro.htm</a> [monthlyreview.org]), which certainly impacts interstate commerce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Article 1 , Section 8 of the Constitution provides both that Congress may " regulate Commerce... among the several States " and that it may " make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers .
" The first provision is known as the Commerce Clause , and has most recently been interpreted ( in United \ _States v. Lopez ) to mean that Congress may make any laws regarding : 1. the channels of interstate commerce,2 .
the instrumentalities of interstate commerce , or persons or things in interstate commerce , and3 .
activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerceTherefore all that Congress needs to do it prove that uninsured people have a substantial affect on interstate commerce , an impact that they have a right to prevent .
That should n't be hard to prove ; numerous studies have measured a significant negative impact of the uninsured on insurance premiums , business and the economy as a whole .
Further , being insured is linked to increased mortality ( http : //www.monthlyreview.org/0903navarro.htm [ monthlyreview.org ] ) , which certainly impacts interstate commerce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution provides both that Congress may "regulate Commerce... among the several States" and that it may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
"The first provision is known as the Commerce Clause, and has most recently been interpreted (in United\_States v. Lopez) to mean that Congress may make any laws regarding:1.  the channels of interstate commerce,2.
the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, and3.
activities that substantially affect or substantially relate to interstate commerceTherefore all that Congress needs to do it prove that uninsured people have a substantial affect on interstate commerce, an impact that they have a right to prevent.
That shouldn't be hard to prove; numerous studies have measured a significant negative impact of the uninsured on insurance premiums, business and the economy as a whole.
Further, being insured is linked to increased mortality (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0903navarro.htm [monthlyreview.org]), which certainly impacts interstate commerce.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025348</id>
	<title>Re:1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>Reziac</author>
	<datestamp>1257676560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your children better start saving now -- since they'll be expected to pay it off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your children better start saving now -- since they 'll be expected to pay it off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your children better start saving now -- since they'll be expected to pay it off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028198</id>
	<title>Re:Socialism is great!</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1257696480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Money, money, money. Where does it come from? What gives it value?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Money , money , money .
Where does it come from ?
What gives it value ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money, money, money.
Where does it come from?
What gives it value?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022350</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257699720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, create 2 million jobs while taxing 10 million jobs out of existence.</p><p>Well done government, you win again!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , create 2 million jobs while taxing 10 million jobs out of existence.Well done government , you win again !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, create 2 million jobs while taxing 10 million jobs out of existence.Well done government, you win again!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022114</id>
	<title>Re:This is how freedom dies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257698280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, everyone likes the freedom to get sick and die at the whim of big business that desperately wants to find any way not to cover you when you need it.</p><p>The poor, of course, also don't deserve to live. They're free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , everyone likes the freedom to get sick and die at the whim of big business that desperately wants to find any way not to cover you when you need it.The poor , of course , also do n't deserve to live .
They 're free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, everyone likes the freedom to get sick and die at the whim of big business that desperately wants to find any way not to cover you when you need it.The poor, of course, also don't deserve to live.
They're free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023070</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257703980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They had to put that amendment in to get DEMOCRATS to vote yes.  No Republicans supported the bill with or without it.  Start blaming your own fucking people, not others who have a clue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They had to put that amendment in to get DEMOCRATS to vote yes .
No Republicans supported the bill with or without it .
Start blaming your own fucking people , not others who have a clue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They had to put that amendment in to get DEMOCRATS to vote yes.
No Republicans supported the bill with or without it.
Start blaming your own fucking people, not others who have a clue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020932</id>
	<title>12 million people excluded?</title>
	<author>Mad Hamster</author>
	<datestamp>1257690060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's with the remaining 4\%? How come not everyone will be covered?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with the remaining 4 \ % ?
How come not everyone will be covered ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with the remaining 4\%?
How come not everyone will be covered?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021136</id>
	<title>Amount Covered</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Considering only around 12 million US citizens aren't covered today (4\%) (the same that isn't covered in this bill) it seems all that happened is Government took further control of the system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering only around 12 million US citizens are n't covered today ( 4 \ % ) ( the same that is n't covered in this bill ) it seems all that happened is Government took further control of the system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering only around 12 million US citizens aren't covered today (4\%) (the same that isn't covered in this bill) it seems all that happened is Government took further control of the system.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022374</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1257699960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.</p></div><p>Who made that claim? Not the original poster. Cash for Clunkers burned through something like $3 billion. If it really created 2 million jobs, that's $1500 per job. In comparison, the Stimulus Bill burned through $120 billion to "create or save" 650,000 jobs. That is, something like $170k spent per job "created or saved". That's more than two orders of magnitude worse. CfC has mad job making sk1llz. You should be advocating CfC-style programs every chance you get.<br> <br>

The real answer is that CfC didn't create that many jobs. You are just inventing facts on the fly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that I do n't really like the CfC idea , but it 's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.Who made that claim ?
Not the original poster .
Cash for Clunkers burned through something like $ 3 billion .
If it really created 2 million jobs , that 's $ 1500 per job .
In comparison , the Stimulus Bill burned through $ 120 billion to " create or save " 650,000 jobs .
That is , something like $ 170k spent per job " created or saved " .
That 's more than two orders of magnitude worse .
CfC has mad job making sk1llz .
You should be advocating CfC-style programs every chance you get .
The real answer is that CfC did n't create that many jobs .
You are just inventing facts on the fly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.Who made that claim?
Not the original poster.
Cash for Clunkers burned through something like $3 billion.
If it really created 2 million jobs, that's $1500 per job.
In comparison, the Stimulus Bill burned through $120 billion to "create or save" 650,000 jobs.
That is, something like $170k spent per job "created or saved".
That's more than two orders of magnitude worse.
CfC has mad job making sk1llz.
You should be advocating CfC-style programs every chance you get.
The real answer is that CfC didn't create that many jobs.
You are just inventing facts on the fly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023624</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257707220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll set aside the "abortion is a form of murder" argument that you deride for the moment.  Why should insurance cover ELECTIVE surgery?  Plastic surgery is generally not covered except for burn reconstruction, etc, so why would abortion be without health risk to the mother?  It is remarkable that including it was ever considered.  If you are going to have sex and don't want a child use one of the many (far less expensive) forms of birth control available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll set aside the " abortion is a form of murder " argument that you deride for the moment .
Why should insurance cover ELECTIVE surgery ?
Plastic surgery is generally not covered except for burn reconstruction , etc , so why would abortion be without health risk to the mother ?
It is remarkable that including it was ever considered .
If you are going to have sex and do n't want a child use one of the many ( far less expensive ) forms of birth control available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll set aside the "abortion is a form of murder" argument that you deride for the moment.
Why should insurance cover ELECTIVE surgery?
Plastic surgery is generally not covered except for burn reconstruction, etc, so why would abortion be without health risk to the mother?
It is remarkable that including it was ever considered.
If you are going to have sex and don't want a child use one of the many (far less expensive) forms of birth control available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021086</id>
	<title>Re:Strikers Vow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And this is why Ayn Rand was a useless bitch. Take your broken pop philosophy somewhere else, please; the adults are trying to make things better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And this is why Ayn Rand was a useless bitch .
Take your broken pop philosophy somewhere else , please ; the adults are trying to make things better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And this is why Ayn Rand was a useless bitch.
Take your broken pop philosophy somewhere else, please; the adults are trying to make things better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020848</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024106</id>
	<title>Re:1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257710940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing clear about it, the Government is notorious for massively under-estimating what its programs will cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing clear about it , the Government is notorious for massively under-estimating what its programs will cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing clear about it, the Government is notorious for massively under-estimating what its programs will cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</id>
	<title>1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>volt4ire</author>
	<datestamp>1257691200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's be clear: 1.2 Billion is the cost for 10 years, not 1 single upfront cost (like bailouts or emergency war funding supplementals)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be clear : 1.2 Billion is the cost for 10 years , not 1 single upfront cost ( like bailouts or emergency war funding supplementals )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be clear: 1.2 Billion is the cost for 10 years, not 1 single upfront cost (like bailouts or emergency war funding supplementals)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029312</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>m85476585</author>
	<datestamp>1257707640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly the only fiscally sound thing to do would be to burn all your money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly the only fiscally sound thing to do would be to burn all your money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly the only fiscally sound thing to do would be to burn all your money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021016</id>
	<title>Re:12 million people excluded?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257690780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What's with the remaining 4\%? How come not everyone will be covered?</p></div><p>

The 4\% will be the small minority of people that still have jobs by 2013. They will be too busy working to support the rest of the looters to get sick and therefor will not need health insurance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with the remaining 4 \ % ?
How come not everyone will be covered ?
The 4 \ % will be the small minority of people that still have jobs by 2013 .
They will be too busy working to support the rest of the looters to get sick and therefor will not need health insurance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with the remaining 4\%?
How come not everyone will be covered?
The 4\% will be the small minority of people that still have jobs by 2013.
They will be too busy working to support the rest of the looters to get sick and therefor will not need health insurance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021506</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1257694140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Government interference is the cause of high health costs. This isn't going to fix that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Government interference is the cause of high health costs .
This is n't going to fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Government interference is the cause of high health costs.
This isn't going to fix that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026330</id>
	<title>Re:What has slipped under the radar...</title>
	<author>garote</author>
	<datestamp>1257683220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's nothing new.  Unless you're a ghost, you have a corporeal form, and thus need to occupy space, and are subject to property tax every minute of the day, whether directly by property ownership or occupying public land, or indirectly by paying rent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's nothing new .
Unless you 're a ghost , you have a corporeal form , and thus need to occupy space , and are subject to property tax every minute of the day , whether directly by property ownership or occupying public land , or indirectly by paying rent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's nothing new.
Unless you're a ghost, you have a corporeal form, and thus need to occupy space, and are subject to property tax every minute of the day, whether directly by property ownership or occupying public land, or indirectly by paying rent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30035744</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1257793860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Flush out your headgear pal and quit dumping this ridiculous scenario on me.  "Force" people into coat hangers?  Who is forcing anyone to get an abortion? . . . .</p><p>I don't like abortion because I think it's murder.  That's it.  It has nothing to do with "choice", just that I believe it is murder.  I won't allow it to manipulate me into a single issue voter, but I am against abortion and that is why.  Your coat hanger argument is a red herring.  Nice try but it fails miserably.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Flush out your headgear pal and quit dumping this ridiculous scenario on me .
" Force " people into coat hangers ?
Who is forcing anyone to get an abortion ?
. .
. .I do n't like abortion because I think it 's murder .
That 's it .
It has nothing to do with " choice " , just that I believe it is murder .
I wo n't allow it to manipulate me into a single issue voter , but I am against abortion and that is why .
Your coat hanger argument is a red herring .
Nice try but it fails miserably .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Flush out your headgear pal and quit dumping this ridiculous scenario on me.
"Force" people into coat hangers?
Who is forcing anyone to get an abortion?
. .
. .I don't like abortion because I think it's murder.
That's it.
It has nothing to do with "choice", just that I believe it is murder.
I won't allow it to manipulate me into a single issue voter, but I am against abortion and that is why.
Your coat hanger argument is a red herring.
Nice try but it fails miserably.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020964</id>
	<title>Don't forget ... privacy destroying</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257690300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm of the opinion that even the current system of private coverage is fundamentally a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality.  You've got these insurance companies just itching to monetize any piece of data they can get from their paying customers, such that the half-assed nature of HIPAA really provides no assurance that your medical information won't be used in one way or another that is ultimately against your well-being.</p><p>The only way to be sure your information (any info, not just medical records) won't be systematically abused is to make sure it isn't entered into a file or a database in the first place.  Unfortunately, there seems to be a real focus on doing just the opposite with these healthcare changes - some sort of magical computer worshipping cargo cult thing where too many people think that if they can just get all our personal info into a database it will be the best thing since sliced bread.  I'm tired of sacrificing privacy for the promise of increased efficiency and convenience and I am doubly tired of those promises failing to pan out in the long run.  But that's exactly what I expect is going to happen here too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm of the opinion that even the current system of private coverage is fundamentally a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality .
You 've got these insurance companies just itching to monetize any piece of data they can get from their paying customers , such that the half-assed nature of HIPAA really provides no assurance that your medical information wo n't be used in one way or another that is ultimately against your well-being.The only way to be sure your information ( any info , not just medical records ) wo n't be systematically abused is to make sure it is n't entered into a file or a database in the first place .
Unfortunately , there seems to be a real focus on doing just the opposite with these healthcare changes - some sort of magical computer worshipping cargo cult thing where too many people think that if they can just get all our personal info into a database it will be the best thing since sliced bread .
I 'm tired of sacrificing privacy for the promise of increased efficiency and convenience and I am doubly tired of those promises failing to pan out in the long run .
But that 's exactly what I expect is going to happen here too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm of the opinion that even the current system of private coverage is fundamentally a violation of doctor-patient confidentiality.
You've got these insurance companies just itching to monetize any piece of data they can get from their paying customers, such that the half-assed nature of HIPAA really provides no assurance that your medical information won't be used in one way or another that is ultimately against your well-being.The only way to be sure your information (any info, not just medical records) won't be systematically abused is to make sure it isn't entered into a file or a database in the first place.
Unfortunately, there seems to be a real focus on doing just the opposite with these healthcare changes - some sort of magical computer worshipping cargo cult thing where too many people think that if they can just get all our personal info into a database it will be the best thing since sliced bread.
I'm tired of sacrificing privacy for the promise of increased efficiency and convenience and I am doubly tired of those promises failing to pan out in the long run.
But that's exactly what I expect is going to happen here too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024430</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>doug141</author>
	<datestamp>1257713640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again.,</i> <p>

An interesting concern, since the UK's waiting lists are forcing people to pull their own teeth with pliers and vodka.

<a href="http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article105238.ece" title="thesun.co.uk">http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article105238.ece</a> [thesun.co.uk]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again. , An interesting concern , since the UK 's waiting lists are forcing people to pull their own teeth with pliers and vodka .
http : //www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article105238.ece [ thesun.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again., 

An interesting concern, since the UK's waiting lists are forcing people to pull their own teeth with pliers and vodka.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article105238.ece [thesun.co.uk]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</id>
	<title>A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>TheMonkeyhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1257691320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill, everyone (except the fat insurance companies) admitted that things had to change, and so this is a start.

however, the amendment restricting abortion coverage is HUGE step backwards and another reminder just how much the lunatic Religious Right has taken hold in the US.  Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again.

so close, but yet so far still to come.</htmltext>
<tokenext>so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill , everyone ( except the fat insurance companies ) admitted that things had to change , and so this is a start .
however , the amendment restricting abortion coverage is HUGE step backwards and another reminder just how much the lunatic Religious Right has taken hold in the US .
Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again .
so close , but yet so far still to come .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill, everyone (except the fat insurance companies) admitted that things had to change, and so this is a start.
however, the amendment restricting abortion coverage is HUGE step backwards and another reminder just how much the lunatic Religious Right has taken hold in the US.
Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again.
so close, but yet so far still to come.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023068</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257703980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They're the ones that started cost inflation in the 1970's that has gotten us to this point.  They don't even know they screwed it up...and we expect them to fix it?</p></div><p>They know they screwed it up, it was part of the plan.  See Cloward-Piven strategy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're the ones that started cost inflation in the 1970 's that has gotten us to this point .
They do n't even know they screwed it up...and we expect them to fix it ? They know they screwed it up , it was part of the plan .
See Cloward-Piven strategy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're the ones that started cost inflation in the 1970's that has gotten us to this point.
They don't even know they screwed it up...and we expect them to fix it?They know they screwed it up, it was part of the plan.
See Cloward-Piven strategy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021174</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022220</id>
	<title>National ID Card</title>
	<author>ReadAholic</author>
	<datestamp>1257698940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since this will be mandatory, everyone will of course need a card to verify who they are. Probably not called Real ID though. That might worry some people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since this will be mandatory , everyone will of course need a card to verify who they are .
Probably not called Real ID though .
That might worry some people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since this will be mandatory, everyone will of course need a card to verify who they are.
Probably not called Real ID though.
That might worry some people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022710</id>
	<title>Seriously, would you people shut the fuck up?</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1257701880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only thing more annoying than the religious right is the whiny left, of which you seem to be a member. These are the people who blame the republicans for all their ills and do nothing but cry and whine about how they can't do anything. Oh shut up and hold the parties responsible to account. The republicans control jack and shit at the federal level any more. The President is a democrat, and a rather socialist democrat by all accounts. Well that accounts for the entire executive branch, since he has the power to appoint the people who run things. Now, in terms of making laws that's the House and Senate of course. In both cases the democrats have not just a majority, but a commanding majority. The house has 257 democrats, 178 republicans. That is a 59\%/41\% advantage. In the Senate it is even bigger 60\%/40\% which is a supermajority that can override filibusters.</p><p>So you have a situation where the republicans have no power to make laws at a federal level without a large amount of democrat support. The democrats on the other hand can pass legislation without even a single republican supporter, and can do so even if procedural tactics are used to attempt to block it,</p><p>Thus we are now in what would be called "Put up or shut up," time. But they aren't.</p><p>Well part of the reason they may not be is because of people like you that refuse to hold them to account. You bitch and whine about The Right(tm) causing problems and don't hold any democrats to account for this.</p><p>I swear that during Bush's terms the democrats got so used to doing nothing but bitching that they now just keep doing the same shit. Well bitching time is over. You've got the power, use it.</p><p>As usual, I think the Daily Show really nailed it <a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority" title="thedailyshow.com">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority</a> [thedailyshow.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only thing more annoying than the religious right is the whiny left , of which you seem to be a member .
These are the people who blame the republicans for all their ills and do nothing but cry and whine about how they ca n't do anything .
Oh shut up and hold the parties responsible to account .
The republicans control jack and shit at the federal level any more .
The President is a democrat , and a rather socialist democrat by all accounts .
Well that accounts for the entire executive branch , since he has the power to appoint the people who run things .
Now , in terms of making laws that 's the House and Senate of course .
In both cases the democrats have not just a majority , but a commanding majority .
The house has 257 democrats , 178 republicans .
That is a 59 \ % /41 \ % advantage .
In the Senate it is even bigger 60 \ % /40 \ % which is a supermajority that can override filibusters.So you have a situation where the republicans have no power to make laws at a federal level without a large amount of democrat support .
The democrats on the other hand can pass legislation without even a single republican supporter , and can do so even if procedural tactics are used to attempt to block it,Thus we are now in what would be called " Put up or shut up , " time .
But they are n't.Well part of the reason they may not be is because of people like you that refuse to hold them to account .
You bitch and whine about The Right ( tm ) causing problems and do n't hold any democrats to account for this.I swear that during Bush 's terms the democrats got so used to doing nothing but bitching that they now just keep doing the same shit .
Well bitching time is over .
You 've got the power , use it.As usual , I think the Daily Show really nailed it http : //www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority [ thedailyshow.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only thing more annoying than the religious right is the whiny left, of which you seem to be a member.
These are the people who blame the republicans for all their ills and do nothing but cry and whine about how they can't do anything.
Oh shut up and hold the parties responsible to account.
The republicans control jack and shit at the federal level any more.
The President is a democrat, and a rather socialist democrat by all accounts.
Well that accounts for the entire executive branch, since he has the power to appoint the people who run things.
Now, in terms of making laws that's the House and Senate of course.
In both cases the democrats have not just a majority, but a commanding majority.
The house has 257 democrats, 178 republicans.
That is a 59\%/41\% advantage.
In the Senate it is even bigger 60\%/40\% which is a supermajority that can override filibusters.So you have a situation where the republicans have no power to make laws at a federal level without a large amount of democrat support.
The democrats on the other hand can pass legislation without even a single republican supporter, and can do so even if procedural tactics are used to attempt to block it,Thus we are now in what would be called "Put up or shut up," time.
But they aren't.Well part of the reason they may not be is because of people like you that refuse to hold them to account.
You bitch and whine about The Right(tm) causing problems and don't hold any democrats to account for this.I swear that during Bush's terms the democrats got so used to doing nothing but bitching that they now just keep doing the same shit.
Well bitching time is over.
You've got the power, use it.As usual, I think the Daily Show really nailed it http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-30-2009/democratic-super-majority [thedailyshow.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021952</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Felix Da Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257697140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't lay the blame for any of these at the feet of an executive who lacks the power to do more than sign or veto any such laws.  Rather highlight that all of these massive expenditures have been approved by our locally elected members of congress.</p><p>Why do we allow incumbents so much lee-way?  Why hasn't there been a strict call for term limits from the people? Why do we tolerate gerrymandering?  Why are the campaign laws so difficult that one needs the support of a national party in order to run in a local election?  What's the magic of '435' members for the house;  why do some represent millions while others thousands?</p><p>If we want to be mad about anything, it shouldn't be who signed what in the Oval Office.  We should be mad that the people who are supposed to represent us don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't lay the blame for any of these at the feet of an executive who lacks the power to do more than sign or veto any such laws .
Rather highlight that all of these massive expenditures have been approved by our locally elected members of congress.Why do we allow incumbents so much lee-way ?
Why has n't there been a strict call for term limits from the people ?
Why do we tolerate gerrymandering ?
Why are the campaign laws so difficult that one needs the support of a national party in order to run in a local election ?
What 's the magic of '435 ' members for the house ; why do some represent millions while others thousands ? If we want to be mad about anything , it should n't be who signed what in the Oval Office .
We should be mad that the people who are supposed to represent us do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't lay the blame for any of these at the feet of an executive who lacks the power to do more than sign or veto any such laws.
Rather highlight that all of these massive expenditures have been approved by our locally elected members of congress.Why do we allow incumbents so much lee-way?
Why hasn't there been a strict call for term limits from the people?
Why do we tolerate gerrymandering?
Why are the campaign laws so difficult that one needs the support of a national party in order to run in a local election?
What's the magic of '435' members for the house;  why do some represent millions while others thousands?If we want to be mad about anything, it shouldn't be who signed what in the Oval Office.
We should be mad that the people who are supposed to represent us don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020974</id>
	<title>It works elsewhere.</title>
	<author>tbcn</author>
	<datestamp>1257690420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems public health insurance works in other communist(?) states, like (in no specific order) Norway, France, Sweden, Canada, the UK and so on...  Insurance companies are evil by default, they want to KEEP your money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems public health insurance works in other communist ( ?
) states , like ( in no specific order ) Norway , France , Sweden , Canada , the UK and so on... Insurance companies are evil by default , they want to KEEP your money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems public health insurance works in other communist(?
) states, like (in no specific order) Norway, France, Sweden, Canada, the UK and so on...  Insurance companies are evil by default, they want to KEEP your money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022566</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>gillbates</author>
	<datestamp>1257701100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Explain to me how enacting a law that nearly half of all Americans don't want would be stepping into the dark ages.
</p><p>
Honestly, whatever you think of abortion, the fact of the matter is that nearly half of all American are opposed to it in any form.  If you drill down further, nearly three quarters of Americans disagree with abortion after the first trimester.  To put something like this in such a sweeping piece of legislation would be unwise, at best.
</p><p>
If there's any issue which could derail health care reform in America, it's abortion.  That debate is best left out of nationalized health care.  I'm not sure why we, the taxpayer, should fund an elective procedure which is 100\% preventable through other, very realistic means.  Adding it to the bill would only antagonize a large part of the population and ensure a Republican filibustering of the bill.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Explain to me how enacting a law that nearly half of all Americans do n't want would be stepping into the dark ages .
Honestly , whatever you think of abortion , the fact of the matter is that nearly half of all American are opposed to it in any form .
If you drill down further , nearly three quarters of Americans disagree with abortion after the first trimester .
To put something like this in such a sweeping piece of legislation would be unwise , at best .
If there 's any issue which could derail health care reform in America , it 's abortion .
That debate is best left out of nationalized health care .
I 'm not sure why we , the taxpayer , should fund an elective procedure which is 100 \ % preventable through other , very realistic means .
Adding it to the bill would only antagonize a large part of the population and ensure a Republican filibustering of the bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Explain to me how enacting a law that nearly half of all Americans don't want would be stepping into the dark ages.
Honestly, whatever you think of abortion, the fact of the matter is that nearly half of all American are opposed to it in any form.
If you drill down further, nearly three quarters of Americans disagree with abortion after the first trimester.
To put something like this in such a sweeping piece of legislation would be unwise, at best.
If there's any issue which could derail health care reform in America, it's abortion.
That debate is best left out of nationalized health care.
I'm not sure why we, the taxpayer, should fund an elective procedure which is 100\% preventable through other, very realistic means.
Adding it to the bill would only antagonize a large part of the population and ensure a Republican filibustering of the bill.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021814</id>
	<title>It's dangerous to go alone, take this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257696240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This thread looks like it could make a lot of use of <a href="http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/4554/libertarianbingo.jpg" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">this</a> [imageshack.us].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread looks like it could make a lot of use of this [ imageshack.us ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread looks like it could make a lot of use of this [imageshack.us].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023294</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>AmberBlackCat</author>
	<datestamp>1257705300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know if that idea made money, but I think it may have accomplished other goals. It reduced our dependency on foreign oil because the cars that use a lot of it were replaced by cars that use less. It also temporarily created jobs to process all of that information. And the savings in gas costs from more fuel efficient vehicles might actually make up for the $4500 over time. Of course, since we have to buy gas no matter what it costs, I wouldn't be surprised if they just raised the cost of the gas to make up for the money we'd save by buying less of it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if that idea made money , but I think it may have accomplished other goals .
It reduced our dependency on foreign oil because the cars that use a lot of it were replaced by cars that use less .
It also temporarily created jobs to process all of that information .
And the savings in gas costs from more fuel efficient vehicles might actually make up for the $ 4500 over time .
Of course , since we have to buy gas no matter what it costs , I would n't be surprised if they just raised the cost of the gas to make up for the money we 'd save by buying less of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if that idea made money, but I think it may have accomplished other goals.
It reduced our dependency on foreign oil because the cars that use a lot of it were replaced by cars that use less.
It also temporarily created jobs to process all of that information.
And the savings in gas costs from more fuel efficient vehicles might actually make up for the $4500 over time.
Of course, since we have to buy gas no matter what it costs, I wouldn't be surprised if they just raised the cost of the gas to make up for the money we'd save by buying less of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021346</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo</title>
	<author>\_LORAX\_</author>
	<datestamp>1257693000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Right, because providing police for free protective services ( police ) increases crime.  Providing better fire protection encourages fires.</p><p>Universal Health Care is a profit loosing scenario, that is a fact.  The market can not provide a solution to a problem that is not profitable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Right , because providing police for free protective services ( police ) increases crime .
Providing better fire protection encourages fires.Universal Health Care is a profit loosing scenario , that is a fact .
The market can not provide a solution to a problem that is not profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Right, because providing police for free protective services ( police ) increases crime.
Providing better fire protection encourages fires.Universal Health Care is a profit loosing scenario, that is a fact.
The market can not provide a solution to a problem that is not profitable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022880</id>
	<title>Re:Oh sweet</title>
	<author>Martin Blank</author>
	<datestamp>1257702780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bill doesn't alter language in other bills.  It alters language in sections of law.  An amendment to a bill may alter the language of a bill, but two bills do not modify each other's text, because then it wouldn't make sense if only one of them passed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bill does n't alter language in other bills .
It alters language in sections of law .
An amendment to a bill may alter the language of a bill , but two bills do not modify each other 's text , because then it would n't make sense if only one of them passed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bill doesn't alter language in other bills.
It alters language in sections of law.
An amendment to a bill may alter the language of a bill, but two bills do not modify each other's text, because then it wouldn't make sense if only one of them passed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021310</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021962</id>
	<title>Re:12 million people excluded?</title>
	<author>sycodon</author>
	<datestamp>1257697260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unions and Congress, who are exempted from this bullshit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unions and Congress , who are exempted from this bullshit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unions and Congress, who are exempted from this bullshit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021570</id>
	<title>Re:1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>Androclese</author>
	<datestamp>1257694500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets be even more clear.  If this passes the Senate, you start paying for this NOW, but it does not get enacted until 2013.  If this topic is *so* important, why are they waiting until *after* the start of the next Presidential term?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets be even more clear .
If this passes the Senate , you start paying for this NOW , but it does not get enacted until 2013 .
If this topic is * so * important , why are they waiting until * after * the start of the next Presidential term ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets be even more clear.
If this passes the Senate, you start paying for this NOW, but it does not get enacted until 2013.
If this topic is *so* important, why are they waiting until *after* the start of the next Presidential term?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022050</id>
	<title>Re:*Sigh*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257697920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Michigan industry committed suicide at the hands of the unions.</p><p>And you are not going to get any more jobs there as long as any company thinks for even a second that the first that will happen is that a union goons will try to unionize the workforce.</p><p>Michigan has a toxic workforce and no company with any sense will ever go there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Michigan industry committed suicide at the hands of the unions.And you are not going to get any more jobs there as long as any company thinks for even a second that the first that will happen is that a union goons will try to unionize the workforce.Michigan has a toxic workforce and no company with any sense will ever go there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Michigan industry committed suicide at the hands of the unions.And you are not going to get any more jobs there as long as any company thinks for even a second that the first that will happen is that a union goons will try to unionize the workforce.Michigan has a toxic workforce and no company with any sense will ever go there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023246</id>
	<title>Re:This is how freedom dies</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1257705060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please, expand on that comment. I'm itching to hear about how the rest of the Western world has compromised freedom by caring for <strong>all</strong> of its citizens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please , expand on that comment .
I 'm itching to hear about how the rest of the Western world has compromised freedom by caring for all of its citizens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please, expand on that comment.
I'm itching to hear about how the rest of the Western world has compromised freedom by caring for all of its citizens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026408</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257683640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On October 5th 1977 the US Government signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. That includes a "right to health". I may be wrong, but I believe the 1977 US Government had the constitutional right to sign this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On October 5th 1977 the US Government signed the International Covenant on Economic , Social and Cultural Rights .
That includes a " right to health " .
I may be wrong , but I believe the 1977 US Government had the constitutional right to sign this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On October 5th 1977 the US Government signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
That includes a "right to health".
I may be wrong, but I believe the 1977 US Government had the constitutional right to sign this.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021058</id>
	<title>*Sigh*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-&gt;Rep. Candice Miller disagreed, calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding' bill.-</p><p>*sigh* Why does my representative have to be such a moron? I've been trying every time I vote to get her out of office....</p><p>Michigan has been in a recession since 2001. Lots of people are out of jobs and can't afford to get health care (let alone the basics: food, shelter, clothing). And she thinks it's a job-killer? The only thing that's killing jobs in Michigan are the representatives who aren't doing anything about trying to create them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>- &gt; Rep .
Candice Miller disagreed , calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing , tax-hiking , deficit-exploding ' bill.- * sigh * Why does my representative have to be such a moron ?
I 've been trying every time I vote to get her out of office....Michigan has been in a recession since 2001 .
Lots of people are out of jobs and ca n't afford to get health care ( let alone the basics : food , shelter , clothing ) .
And she thinks it 's a job-killer ?
The only thing that 's killing jobs in Michigan are the representatives who are n't doing anything about trying to create them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-&gt;Rep.
Candice Miller disagreed, calling the legislation 'a jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding' bill.-*sigh* Why does my representative have to be such a moron?
I've been trying every time I vote to get her out of office....Michigan has been in a recession since 2001.
Lots of people are out of jobs and can't afford to get health care (let alone the basics: food, shelter, clothing).
And she thinks it's a job-killer?
The only thing that's killing jobs in Michigan are the representatives who aren't doing anything about trying to create them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023006</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1257703500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is a provision that will surely be tested in court before a single person receives a benefit.  Not before a single person is taxed, however unfortunately that may be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is a provision that will surely be tested in court before a single person receives a benefit .
Not before a single person is taxed , however unfortunately that may be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is a provision that will surely be tested in court before a single person receives a benefit.
Not before a single person is taxed, however unfortunately that may be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028332</id>
	<title>Re:The supreme cout will rule it unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1257697560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>unconstitutional</p></div><p>You keep on saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>unconstitutionalYou keep on saying that word .
I do not think it means what you think it means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>unconstitutionalYou keep on saying that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022650</id>
	<title>Why...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257701640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is this on Slashdot? Quite unusual...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is this on Slashdot ?
Quite unusual.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is this on Slashdot?
Quite unusual...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023142</id>
	<title>Just what the doctor ordered, socialism.</title>
	<author>Austin Milbarge</author>
	<datestamp>1257704460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so glad the people who bankrupted Social Security and Medicare will finally have their hands in everything to do with our health care.  This bill doesn't lower prices, but only shifts the actual insurance from 1100 competing private companies to one big government bureaucracy.  Each year, less and less doctors are accepting Medicaid and other government health insurances because their payments stink.  Of course liberals don't seem to mind because doctors are all rich people anyway who can afford to work for low wages.  Nevermind that they pay hundreds of thousands in malpractice insurance, rent, electric and other business expenses.  Who cares about business anyways?  It's only math and numbers!  Truth is, all of that doesn't matter when people are sick.  In fact, I heard that the laws of gravity cease to exist when people get sick.  Seriously, it seems only the lawyers are allowed to charge $500/hr because democrats love litigation, especially litigation that brings down private companies so that ill-funded and high taxing government programs can step in.  I feel all future doctors should be forced to spend 10 years in medical school, come out with hundreds of thousands in school loans and do this to get paid low wages because the government says so.  That will give the future doctors of America something to look forward too!  However, there is one way to remedy this.  Make medical school only 1 year, this avoids a lot of the expensive school loans, but gives us tons of uneducated shitty doctors who will work for government pay.  I'm sure liberals don't mind that as long as everyone is covered, right?</p><p>The next thing we should do is force pharmaceutical companies to lower prices for all drugs to 1 cent a pill.  That's right!  Where do these big pharm companies get their  nerve spending billions on new life saving drugs and then charging us a dollar or more a pill so they can keep funding their research??  Why can't these people simply work for less money?  In fact, the engineers and the construction workers who build the pharmaceutical buildings, the electric companies that power the research departments and the companies that supply all the medical testing equipment should all take a pay cut because these pills are just too important!  All pills that can save lives should be free, and the people who helped develop those pills shouldn't complain.  If they do, then throw them out and hire cheaper chemists and scientists.  If that doesn't work, we can always unionise the chemists and scientists so that instead of making drugs, they can be sipping more coffee and can keep their job even if they suck at it .  That'll fix these rich pharmaceutical bastards!  Right??</p><p>I love the fact that the people who scared us into getting the H1N1 vaccination and then couldn't even deliver 1/8 of the vaccines it promised are now going to run our health care system.  Of course, liberals love free things.  They love when someone else has to pay for their problems and they certainly couldn't care less about quality as long as everyone gets something.  Something is better than nothing, right??  It's better that all 300 million citizens end up with crap than $270 million end up with good health care. Who cares that no one has read all 2,000 pages of this bill?  Who cares if good doctors can't make a living and are forced to find other lines of work?  Who cares if Big Pharm can't create life saving drugs because they can't fund research?  Who cares if taxes go way up?  Just as long as we have Hope &amp; Change.  Because without Hope &amp; Change there is no reason to go on living.</p><p>Welcome to socialism my friends.  Enjoy.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so glad the people who bankrupted Social Security and Medicare will finally have their hands in everything to do with our health care .
This bill does n't lower prices , but only shifts the actual insurance from 1100 competing private companies to one big government bureaucracy .
Each year , less and less doctors are accepting Medicaid and other government health insurances because their payments stink .
Of course liberals do n't seem to mind because doctors are all rich people anyway who can afford to work for low wages .
Nevermind that they pay hundreds of thousands in malpractice insurance , rent , electric and other business expenses .
Who cares about business anyways ?
It 's only math and numbers !
Truth is , all of that does n't matter when people are sick .
In fact , I heard that the laws of gravity cease to exist when people get sick .
Seriously , it seems only the lawyers are allowed to charge $ 500/hr because democrats love litigation , especially litigation that brings down private companies so that ill-funded and high taxing government programs can step in .
I feel all future doctors should be forced to spend 10 years in medical school , come out with hundreds of thousands in school loans and do this to get paid low wages because the government says so .
That will give the future doctors of America something to look forward too !
However , there is one way to remedy this .
Make medical school only 1 year , this avoids a lot of the expensive school loans , but gives us tons of uneducated shitty doctors who will work for government pay .
I 'm sure liberals do n't mind that as long as everyone is covered , right ? The next thing we should do is force pharmaceutical companies to lower prices for all drugs to 1 cent a pill .
That 's right !
Where do these big pharm companies get their nerve spending billions on new life saving drugs and then charging us a dollar or more a pill so they can keep funding their research ? ?
Why ca n't these people simply work for less money ?
In fact , the engineers and the construction workers who build the pharmaceutical buildings , the electric companies that power the research departments and the companies that supply all the medical testing equipment should all take a pay cut because these pills are just too important !
All pills that can save lives should be free , and the people who helped develop those pills should n't complain .
If they do , then throw them out and hire cheaper chemists and scientists .
If that does n't work , we can always unionise the chemists and scientists so that instead of making drugs , they can be sipping more coffee and can keep their job even if they suck at it .
That 'll fix these rich pharmaceutical bastards !
Right ? ? I love the fact that the people who scared us into getting the H1N1 vaccination and then could n't even deliver 1/8 of the vaccines it promised are now going to run our health care system .
Of course , liberals love free things .
They love when someone else has to pay for their problems and they certainly could n't care less about quality as long as everyone gets something .
Something is better than nothing , right ? ?
It 's better that all 300 million citizens end up with crap than $ 270 million end up with good health care .
Who cares that no one has read all 2,000 pages of this bill ?
Who cares if good doctors ca n't make a living and are forced to find other lines of work ?
Who cares if Big Pharm ca n't create life saving drugs because they ca n't fund research ?
Who cares if taxes go way up ?
Just as long as we have Hope &amp; Change .
Because without Hope &amp; Change there is no reason to go on living.Welcome to socialism my friends .
Enjoy. : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so glad the people who bankrupted Social Security and Medicare will finally have their hands in everything to do with our health care.
This bill doesn't lower prices, but only shifts the actual insurance from 1100 competing private companies to one big government bureaucracy.
Each year, less and less doctors are accepting Medicaid and other government health insurances because their payments stink.
Of course liberals don't seem to mind because doctors are all rich people anyway who can afford to work for low wages.
Nevermind that they pay hundreds of thousands in malpractice insurance, rent, electric and other business expenses.
Who cares about business anyways?
It's only math and numbers!
Truth is, all of that doesn't matter when people are sick.
In fact, I heard that the laws of gravity cease to exist when people get sick.
Seriously, it seems only the lawyers are allowed to charge $500/hr because democrats love litigation, especially litigation that brings down private companies so that ill-funded and high taxing government programs can step in.
I feel all future doctors should be forced to spend 10 years in medical school, come out with hundreds of thousands in school loans and do this to get paid low wages because the government says so.
That will give the future doctors of America something to look forward too!
However, there is one way to remedy this.
Make medical school only 1 year, this avoids a lot of the expensive school loans, but gives us tons of uneducated shitty doctors who will work for government pay.
I'm sure liberals don't mind that as long as everyone is covered, right?The next thing we should do is force pharmaceutical companies to lower prices for all drugs to 1 cent a pill.
That's right!
Where do these big pharm companies get their  nerve spending billions on new life saving drugs and then charging us a dollar or more a pill so they can keep funding their research??
Why can't these people simply work for less money?
In fact, the engineers and the construction workers who build the pharmaceutical buildings, the electric companies that power the research departments and the companies that supply all the medical testing equipment should all take a pay cut because these pills are just too important!
All pills that can save lives should be free, and the people who helped develop those pills shouldn't complain.
If they do, then throw them out and hire cheaper chemists and scientists.
If that doesn't work, we can always unionise the chemists and scientists so that instead of making drugs, they can be sipping more coffee and can keep their job even if they suck at it .
That'll fix these rich pharmaceutical bastards!
Right??I love the fact that the people who scared us into getting the H1N1 vaccination and then couldn't even deliver 1/8 of the vaccines it promised are now going to run our health care system.
Of course, liberals love free things.
They love when someone else has to pay for their problems and they certainly couldn't care less about quality as long as everyone gets something.
Something is better than nothing, right??
It's better that all 300 million citizens end up with crap than $270 million end up with good health care.
Who cares that no one has read all 2,000 pages of this bill?
Who cares if good doctors can't make a living and are forced to find other lines of work?
Who cares if Big Pharm can't create life saving drugs because they can't fund research?
Who cares if taxes go way up?
Just as long as we have Hope &amp; Change.
Because without Hope &amp; Change there is no reason to go on living.Welcome to socialism my friends.
Enjoy. :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022752</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257702120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You aren't standing next to me, but if you google the US Constitution, look for the phrase "general welfare". Get the annotated version so you can see how it's been used over the past few centuries.  Next look for the "commerce clause".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are n't standing next to me , but if you google the US Constitution , look for the phrase " general welfare " .
Get the annotated version so you can see how it 's been used over the past few centuries .
Next look for the " commerce clause " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You aren't standing next to me, but if you google the US Constitution, look for the phrase "general welfare".
Get the annotated version so you can see how it's been used over the past few centuries.
Next look for the "commerce clause".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023400</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>the eric conspiracy</author>
	<datestamp>1257705900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh come on. The idea of narrowly construed and restricted enumerated powers lasted less than 5 years from the adoption of the Constitution. It died with the establishment of a national bank in 1791.</p><p>If this was interpreted narrowly we would have no programs like the EPA, Federal aid to education, the interstate highway system, etc etc etc. Bringing that objection up at this point is like trying to roll the US back to the time there were just 13 states.</p><p>Give us a break with this sort of nonsense, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh come on .
The idea of narrowly construed and restricted enumerated powers lasted less than 5 years from the adoption of the Constitution .
It died with the establishment of a national bank in 1791.If this was interpreted narrowly we would have no programs like the EPA , Federal aid to education , the interstate highway system , etc etc etc .
Bringing that objection up at this point is like trying to roll the US back to the time there were just 13 states.Give us a break with this sort of nonsense , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh come on.
The idea of narrowly construed and restricted enumerated powers lasted less than 5 years from the adoption of the Constitution.
It died with the establishment of a national bank in 1791.If this was interpreted narrowly we would have no programs like the EPA, Federal aid to education, the interstate highway system, etc etc etc.
Bringing that objection up at this point is like trying to roll the US back to the time there were just 13 states.Give us a break with this sort of nonsense, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026142</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1257682020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Based on my hasty research, the majority of this bill looks like a good idea, but you hit the one thing about it that I am most strongly against. Now, I'm admittedly not the healthiest individual. I don't exercise nearly as much as I should, but I don't drink or gorge myself on soda and onion rings all day either. Point is, I'm in good overall health and there's no way in hell I should be FORCED to subsidize the expensive care and treatment of those who can't be bothered to look after their own well-being.</p><p>I don't think it's a coincidence that we're talking about government-mandated health care with nationwide obesity skyrocketing from about 10\% to 30\% over the course of the last 30 years. (<a href="http://win.niddk.nih.gov/statistics/" title="nih.gov">Source.</a> [nih.gov]) If we keep this up, literally half the population will be obese in 10-20 more years. Why should these people get a free ticket for all of their self-inflicted bodily harm on my dime? Is there anything in the bill that will address the obesity epidemic directly and lessen the NEED for health care in the first place? I'm still researching the answers, but I'd be very surprised if it did.</p><p>I have no problem with the government mandating immediate, unconditional, professional care for all emergency and urgent cases. Even if the patient admits up-front that they are in the country illegally and there is no reprisal (i.e., a friendly visit from INS) for doing so.</p><p>I have no problem with employers offering health insurance to all employees, even healthy ones. I don't even have too much of a problem with the government requiring employers to offer health insurance, though there should be a limit on the number of employees and/or the amount of profit that the company makes before those requirements kick in. The company should also be able to reduce the employee's pay according to how much the insurance plan costs them.</p><p>But purchasing insurance should not be mandatory, period. If I don't work for a company that provides health insurance gratis, and/or I chose to opt-out of health insurance, I pay a 2.5\% penalty on my income taxes according to H.R. 3200. Just what this recession needs.</p><p>I'm curious to know what happens to the self-employed, contractors, or freelance types? If they don't go out and deliberately purchase health insurance, are they subject to the 2.5\% income tax penalty? I guess the only way to escape paying for something you don't use would be to not make any money at all. Fuck it, I'm going to quit my job and beg on the street corner for change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Based on my hasty research , the majority of this bill looks like a good idea , but you hit the one thing about it that I am most strongly against .
Now , I 'm admittedly not the healthiest individual .
I do n't exercise nearly as much as I should , but I do n't drink or gorge myself on soda and onion rings all day either .
Point is , I 'm in good overall health and there 's no way in hell I should be FORCED to subsidize the expensive care and treatment of those who ca n't be bothered to look after their own well-being.I do n't think it 's a coincidence that we 're talking about government-mandated health care with nationwide obesity skyrocketing from about 10 \ % to 30 \ % over the course of the last 30 years .
( Source. [ nih.gov ] ) If we keep this up , literally half the population will be obese in 10-20 more years .
Why should these people get a free ticket for all of their self-inflicted bodily harm on my dime ?
Is there anything in the bill that will address the obesity epidemic directly and lessen the NEED for health care in the first place ?
I 'm still researching the answers , but I 'd be very surprised if it did.I have no problem with the government mandating immediate , unconditional , professional care for all emergency and urgent cases .
Even if the patient admits up-front that they are in the country illegally and there is no reprisal ( i.e. , a friendly visit from INS ) for doing so.I have no problem with employers offering health insurance to all employees , even healthy ones .
I do n't even have too much of a problem with the government requiring employers to offer health insurance , though there should be a limit on the number of employees and/or the amount of profit that the company makes before those requirements kick in .
The company should also be able to reduce the employee 's pay according to how much the insurance plan costs them.But purchasing insurance should not be mandatory , period .
If I do n't work for a company that provides health insurance gratis , and/or I chose to opt-out of health insurance , I pay a 2.5 \ % penalty on my income taxes according to H.R .
3200. Just what this recession needs.I 'm curious to know what happens to the self-employed , contractors , or freelance types ?
If they do n't go out and deliberately purchase health insurance , are they subject to the 2.5 \ % income tax penalty ?
I guess the only way to escape paying for something you do n't use would be to not make any money at all .
Fuck it , I 'm going to quit my job and beg on the street corner for change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Based on my hasty research, the majority of this bill looks like a good idea, but you hit the one thing about it that I am most strongly against.
Now, I'm admittedly not the healthiest individual.
I don't exercise nearly as much as I should, but I don't drink or gorge myself on soda and onion rings all day either.
Point is, I'm in good overall health and there's no way in hell I should be FORCED to subsidize the expensive care and treatment of those who can't be bothered to look after their own well-being.I don't think it's a coincidence that we're talking about government-mandated health care with nationwide obesity skyrocketing from about 10\% to 30\% over the course of the last 30 years.
(Source. [nih.gov]) If we keep this up, literally half the population will be obese in 10-20 more years.
Why should these people get a free ticket for all of their self-inflicted bodily harm on my dime?
Is there anything in the bill that will address the obesity epidemic directly and lessen the NEED for health care in the first place?
I'm still researching the answers, but I'd be very surprised if it did.I have no problem with the government mandating immediate, unconditional, professional care for all emergency and urgent cases.
Even if the patient admits up-front that they are in the country illegally and there is no reprisal (i.e., a friendly visit from INS) for doing so.I have no problem with employers offering health insurance to all employees, even healthy ones.
I don't even have too much of a problem with the government requiring employers to offer health insurance, though there should be a limit on the number of employees and/or the amount of profit that the company makes before those requirements kick in.
The company should also be able to reduce the employee's pay according to how much the insurance plan costs them.But purchasing insurance should not be mandatory, period.
If I don't work for a company that provides health insurance gratis, and/or I chose to opt-out of health insurance, I pay a 2.5\% penalty on my income taxes according to H.R.
3200. Just what this recession needs.I'm curious to know what happens to the self-employed, contractors, or freelance types?
If they don't go out and deliberately purchase health insurance, are they subject to the 2.5\% income tax penalty?
I guess the only way to escape paying for something you don't use would be to not make any money at all.
Fuck it, I'm going to quit my job and beg on the street corner for change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021858</id>
	<title>No big surprise, actually.</title>
	<author>Chris Tucker</author>
	<datestamp>1257696480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The stench of Randroid droppings is thick in the air today.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stench of Randroid droppings is thick in the air today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stench of Randroid droppings is thick in the air today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021376</id>
	<title>Congress should test this first for 3 years</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257693360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I want to see Pelosi wait in line at a VA hospital for Psyhc care.</p><p>Healthcare in the US is f'd up but the gov is no answer.  Remember Walter Reed?  Take care of our GI's first before you move to the whole country.  It is sad.  We will have a tier'd system.<br>Politicans and the Rich will fly to the islands for care while we are stuck with the left overs.</p><p>If I was a sharp heart surgeon I would say f you to gov rates and set up shop in the Caymans and cater to Americans elite while the serfs get stuck in long lines and overworked left over docs.</p><p>Government is inept at solving problems like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I want to see Pelosi wait in line at a VA hospital for Psyhc care.Healthcare in the US is f 'd up but the gov is no answer .
Remember Walter Reed ?
Take care of our GI 's first before you move to the whole country .
It is sad .
We will have a tier 'd system.Politicans and the Rich will fly to the islands for care while we are stuck with the left overs.If I was a sharp heart surgeon I would say f you to gov rates and set up shop in the Caymans and cater to Americans elite while the serfs get stuck in long lines and overworked left over docs.Government is inept at solving problems like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want to see Pelosi wait in line at a VA hospital for Psyhc care.Healthcare in the US is f'd up but the gov is no answer.
Remember Walter Reed?
Take care of our GI's first before you move to the whole country.
It is sad.
We will have a tier'd system.Politicans and the Rich will fly to the islands for care while we are stuck with the left overs.If I was a sharp heart surgeon I would say f you to gov rates and set up shop in the Caymans and cater to Americans elite while the serfs get stuck in long lines and overworked left over docs.Government is inept at solving problems like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020854</id>
	<title>What's in it?</title>
	<author>serps</author>
	<datestamp>1257689040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not from the US, but isn't that the main bit of you guys' healthcare system that's most in need of fixing?</p><p>In my country, pre-existing conditions just mean that you can't claim anything for 12 months after joining. It doesn't affect premiums or anything, and no health insurance provider can reject your application.</p><p>So, I guess, welcome to the 20th century!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned , and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history.I 'm not from the US , but is n't that the main bit of you guys ' healthcare system that 's most in need of fixing ? In my country , pre-existing conditions just mean that you ca n't claim anything for 12 months after joining .
It does n't affect premiums or anything , and no health insurance provider can reject your application.So , I guess , welcome to the 20th century !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history.I'm not from the US, but isn't that the main bit of you guys' healthcare system that's most in need of fixing?In my country, pre-existing conditions just mean that you can't claim anything for 12 months after joining.
It doesn't affect premiums or anything, and no health insurance provider can reject your application.So, I guess, welcome to the 20th century!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022094</id>
	<title>No way will any meaningful bill pass in Senate</title>
	<author>MarkWatson</author>
	<datestamp>1257698160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Our corporate overlords (those who own Congress) won't allow it.</p><p>Call me cynical, but I think that our overlords (one of my friends calls these people "the owners", and she has that right) let the House pass this bill to keep people's hopes alive and distracted.</p><p>I am basically against large government expenditures, but the cost of our military industrial complex is so much more that what a reasonable medical bill would cost, that I have softened my position and now I do support health care reform.</p><p>BTW, we could save a lot of money by trimming our ""defense"" costs but that is not going to happen because a relatively few people make so much profit that any reform there is not going to happen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Our corporate overlords ( those who own Congress ) wo n't allow it.Call me cynical , but I think that our overlords ( one of my friends calls these people " the owners " , and she has that right ) let the House pass this bill to keep people 's hopes alive and distracted.I am basically against large government expenditures , but the cost of our military industrial complex is so much more that what a reasonable medical bill would cost , that I have softened my position and now I do support health care reform.BTW , we could save a lot of money by trimming our " " defense " " costs but that is not going to happen because a relatively few people make so much profit that any reform there is not going to happen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Our corporate overlords (those who own Congress) won't allow it.Call me cynical, but I think that our overlords (one of my friends calls these people "the owners", and she has that right) let the House pass this bill to keep people's hopes alive and distracted.I am basically against large government expenditures, but the cost of our military industrial complex is so much more that what a reasonable medical bill would cost, that I have softened my position and now I do support health care reform.BTW, we could save a lot of money by trimming our ""defense"" costs but that is not going to happen because a relatively few people make so much profit that any reform there is not going to happen.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026710</id>
	<title>Re:Oh sweet</title>
	<author>angelbunny</author>
	<datestamp>1257685440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exaggerating the length of the bill(s) is pointless. There is about as much content on a single page of a bill as a page on a Goosebumps book. Everything is double spaced, giant font size, and there is enough white space on the sides to kill multiple trees.</p><p>Not only that but most of the bill is super redundant. I'm not sure why but it feels like someone with altimers wrote these bills.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exaggerating the length of the bill ( s ) is pointless .
There is about as much content on a single page of a bill as a page on a Goosebumps book .
Everything is double spaced , giant font size , and there is enough white space on the sides to kill multiple trees.Not only that but most of the bill is super redundant .
I 'm not sure why but it feels like someone with altimers wrote these bills .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exaggerating the length of the bill(s) is pointless.
There is about as much content on a single page of a bill as a page on a Goosebumps book.
Everything is double spaced, giant font size, and there is enough white space on the sides to kill multiple trees.Not only that but most of the bill is super redundant.
I'm not sure why but it feels like someone with altimers wrote these bills.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878</id>
	<title>Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Timex</author>
	<datestamp>1257689340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's see...  Buy insurance, or go to jail.  It sounds like Massachusetts.</p><p>How would this get paid for, I wonder?  It's written by the same people that brought you "Cash for Clunkers" and the "Stimulus Package", and we know what came of THEM.</p><p>The Senate isn't expecting to make a vote on their version until next year.  Hopefully it will die a horrible death.  This bill has no business at ALL being the Law of the Land.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see... Buy insurance , or go to jail .
It sounds like Massachusetts.How would this get paid for , I wonder ?
It 's written by the same people that brought you " Cash for Clunkers " and the " Stimulus Package " , and we know what came of THEM.The Senate is n't expecting to make a vote on their version until next year .
Hopefully it will die a horrible death .
This bill has no business at ALL being the Law of the Land .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see...  Buy insurance, or go to jail.
It sounds like Massachusetts.How would this get paid for, I wonder?
It's written by the same people that brought you "Cash for Clunkers" and the "Stimulus Package", and we know what came of THEM.The Senate isn't expecting to make a vote on their version until next year.
Hopefully it will die a horrible death.
This bill has no business at ALL being the Law of the Land.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021382</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257693360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><blockquote><div><p>Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail. It sounds like Massachusetts.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, it sounds like a reasonable society.</p></div></blockquote><p>Haven't looked at the details of the bill, have you?
</p><p>What this bill does is require health insurance companies to sell you a policy regardless of pre-existing conditions, and with no cost-bias as a result of pre-existing condition.
</p><p>And it requires you to buy insurance, whether you think you need it or not.  If you don't buy insurance, you're fined.
</p><p>The trick is that the fine is quite a bit smaller than the cost of insurance.  So people who don't think they need insurance are likely to pay the fine every year, rather than buy insurance.
</p><p>Until suddenly they need insurance.  THEN they'll buy the insurance.
</p><p>Thus, the insurance companies get nailed.
</p><p>Now, I really don't whether the insurance companies lose money like that.  I DO care that they'll raise MY insurance rates to cover that situation.  And they will.
</p><p>Note that there was a relatively simple solution to the health care situation in the USA that Congress carefully avoided - extend Medicare coverage to everyone.  They didn't do that one, mostly because there's no campaign contributions to be had by doing that...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see... Buy insurance , or go to jail .
It sounds like Massachusetts.No , it sounds like a reasonable society.Have n't looked at the details of the bill , have you ?
What this bill does is require health insurance companies to sell you a policy regardless of pre-existing conditions , and with no cost-bias as a result of pre-existing condition .
And it requires you to buy insurance , whether you think you need it or not .
If you do n't buy insurance , you 're fined .
The trick is that the fine is quite a bit smaller than the cost of insurance .
So people who do n't think they need insurance are likely to pay the fine every year , rather than buy insurance .
Until suddenly they need insurance .
THEN they 'll buy the insurance .
Thus , the insurance companies get nailed .
Now , I really do n't whether the insurance companies lose money like that .
I DO care that they 'll raise MY insurance rates to cover that situation .
And they will .
Note that there was a relatively simple solution to the health care situation in the USA that Congress carefully avoided - extend Medicare coverage to everyone .
They did n't do that one , mostly because there 's no campaign contributions to be had by doing that.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail.
It sounds like Massachusetts.No, it sounds like a reasonable society.Haven't looked at the details of the bill, have you?
What this bill does is require health insurance companies to sell you a policy regardless of pre-existing conditions, and with no cost-bias as a result of pre-existing condition.
And it requires you to buy insurance, whether you think you need it or not.
If you don't buy insurance, you're fined.
The trick is that the fine is quite a bit smaller than the cost of insurance.
So people who don't think they need insurance are likely to pay the fine every year, rather than buy insurance.
Until suddenly they need insurance.
THEN they'll buy the insurance.
Thus, the insurance companies get nailed.
Now, I really don't whether the insurance companies lose money like that.
I DO care that they'll raise MY insurance rates to cover that situation.
And they will.
Note that there was a relatively simple solution to the health care situation in the USA that Congress carefully avoided - extend Medicare coverage to everyone.
They didn't do that one, mostly because there's no campaign contributions to be had by doing that...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026810</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo</title>
	<author>Bitmanhome</author>
	<datestamp>1257686160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.</p></div><p>Especially interesting when you discover Maslow's theory is <i>false</i>.  It's perfectly logical<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. but it's <i>not</i> what drives people.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This is why nationalized healthcare works.</p></div><p>Again, perfectly logical, but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. well not false, but highly misleading.  Nationalized health care provides service, but it's poor quality or to a limited percentage of the people, or both.  Most, if not all, NHC plans impose both high taxes and long lines.  American nationalized plans fail particularly badly.</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... socialism is not all bad. Military, fire, police, community centres, libraries: all of these are iconic images of American life, and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually, if not immediately.</p></div><p>True, but again misleading.  These services are all well defined.  A fire is a fire, you dump water on it til it's out.  There's a little research here (jaws of life, chemical foams) but not much has changed in the past 100 years.</p><p>This is not true of health care:  almost <i>everything</i> has changed in the past 100 years.  And yet there are many diseases that cannot be cured.  Nationalized systems are not very good at dealing with things that need to change rapidly.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Maslow 's Hierarchy of Needs.Especially interesting when you discover Maslow 's theory is false .
It 's perfectly logical .. but it 's not what drives people.This is why nationalized healthcare works.Again , perfectly logical , but .. well not false , but highly misleading .
Nationalized health care provides service , but it 's poor quality or to a limited percentage of the people , or both .
Most , if not all , NHC plans impose both high taxes and long lines .
American nationalized plans fail particularly badly .
... socialism is not all bad .
Military , fire , police , community centres , libraries : all of these are iconic images of American life , and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually , if not immediately.True , but again misleading .
These services are all well defined .
A fire is a fire , you dump water on it til it 's out .
There 's a little research here ( jaws of life , chemical foams ) but not much has changed in the past 100 years.This is not true of health care : almost everything has changed in the past 100 years .
And yet there are many diseases that can not be cured .
Nationalized systems are not very good at dealing with things that need to change rapidly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.Especially interesting when you discover Maslow's theory is false.
It's perfectly logical .. but it's not what drives people.This is why nationalized healthcare works.Again, perfectly logical, but .. well not false, but highly misleading.
Nationalized health care provides service, but it's poor quality or to a limited percentage of the people, or both.
Most, if not all, NHC plans impose both high taxes and long lines.
American nationalized plans fail particularly badly.
... socialism is not all bad.
Military, fire, police, community centres, libraries: all of these are iconic images of American life, and all of them are funded by the idea that collective payment benefits everyone eventually, if not immediately.True, but again misleading.
These services are all well defined.
A fire is a fire, you dump water on it til it's out.
There's a little research here (jaws of life, chemical foams) but not much has changed in the past 100 years.This is not true of health care:  almost everything has changed in the past 100 years.
And yet there are many diseases that cannot be cured.
Nationalized systems are not very good at dealing with things that need to change rapidly.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021270</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021486</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257694020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>if i am not mistaken 1 'created' costed way more than 100k of taxpayer money each. Seriously? I'd call that blowing the money. How can anyone call something like that a success? Besides if so many jobs were created why the unemployment rate jumped above 10\%? Not to mention that government/healthcare jobs don't really create wealth, but merely redistribute it. Without jobs in productive non-government controlled sectors it will be a disaster. Someone has to pay the taxes first so the government can waste the money.</p><p>Cash for Clunkers is as close to 'broken window fallacy' as you can get. It's about destroying value so someone can get the job of rebuilding it. It made a spike on care sale graphs thanks to billions of budget deficit, it made a big chunk of phony gdp growth last quarter but there is no way it will hold. Will you be surprised when you see a contraction of gdp next year?<br>
Seriously? That's the brilliant idea? So how about destroying houses? After all there is plenty of them. Think of the whole construction industry, they would enter golden age if there was such program of destroying and rebuilding.<br>
Cash for Clunkers made a spike on care sales graphs thanks to billions of budget deficit, it made a big chunk of phony gdp growth last quarter but there is no way it will hold.  Will you be surprised when you see a contraction of gdp next year? Whole idea of stimulus packages is similar to pumping steroids into the veins of half-dead overtrained runner so he can run one mile more - it doesn't matter that he'll die later.</p><p>Participating in economy is not about having jobs for the sake of having it, it's about building your wealth - jobs are merely means of achieving the goal. If you encourage people to get rid of perfectly working stuff so it can be replaced by stuff bought with borrowed money, you are doing it wrong. If you need to borrow heavily, inflate the money supply and debase your currency to achieve better looking numbers - you are doing it wrong. You may create an illusion of prosperity but it will crash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if i am not mistaken 1 'created ' costed way more than 100k of taxpayer money each .
Seriously ? I 'd call that blowing the money .
How can anyone call something like that a success ?
Besides if so many jobs were created why the unemployment rate jumped above 10 \ % ?
Not to mention that government/healthcare jobs do n't really create wealth , but merely redistribute it .
Without jobs in productive non-government controlled sectors it will be a disaster .
Someone has to pay the taxes first so the government can waste the money.Cash for Clunkers is as close to 'broken window fallacy ' as you can get .
It 's about destroying value so someone can get the job of rebuilding it .
It made a spike on care sale graphs thanks to billions of budget deficit , it made a big chunk of phony gdp growth last quarter but there is no way it will hold .
Will you be surprised when you see a contraction of gdp next year ?
Seriously ? That 's the brilliant idea ?
So how about destroying houses ?
After all there is plenty of them .
Think of the whole construction industry , they would enter golden age if there was such program of destroying and rebuilding .
Cash for Clunkers made a spike on care sales graphs thanks to billions of budget deficit , it made a big chunk of phony gdp growth last quarter but there is no way it will hold .
Will you be surprised when you see a contraction of gdp next year ?
Whole idea of stimulus packages is similar to pumping steroids into the veins of half-dead overtrained runner so he can run one mile more - it does n't matter that he 'll die later.Participating in economy is not about having jobs for the sake of having it , it 's about building your wealth - jobs are merely means of achieving the goal .
If you encourage people to get rid of perfectly working stuff so it can be replaced by stuff bought with borrowed money , you are doing it wrong .
If you need to borrow heavily , inflate the money supply and debase your currency to achieve better looking numbers - you are doing it wrong .
You may create an illusion of prosperity but it will crash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if i am not mistaken 1 'created' costed way more than 100k of taxpayer money each.
Seriously? I'd call that blowing the money.
How can anyone call something like that a success?
Besides if so many jobs were created why the unemployment rate jumped above 10\%?
Not to mention that government/healthcare jobs don't really create wealth, but merely redistribute it.
Without jobs in productive non-government controlled sectors it will be a disaster.
Someone has to pay the taxes first so the government can waste the money.Cash for Clunkers is as close to 'broken window fallacy' as you can get.
It's about destroying value so someone can get the job of rebuilding it.
It made a spike on care sale graphs thanks to billions of budget deficit, it made a big chunk of phony gdp growth last quarter but there is no way it will hold.
Will you be surprised when you see a contraction of gdp next year?
Seriously? That's the brilliant idea?
So how about destroying houses?
After all there is plenty of them.
Think of the whole construction industry, they would enter golden age if there was such program of destroying and rebuilding.
Cash for Clunkers made a spike on care sales graphs thanks to billions of budget deficit, it made a big chunk of phony gdp growth last quarter but there is no way it will hold.
Will you be surprised when you see a contraction of gdp next year?
Whole idea of stimulus packages is similar to pumping steroids into the veins of half-dead overtrained runner so he can run one mile more - it doesn't matter that he'll die later.Participating in economy is not about having jobs for the sake of having it, it's about building your wealth - jobs are merely means of achieving the goal.
If you encourage people to get rid of perfectly working stuff so it can be replaced by stuff bought with borrowed money, you are doing it wrong.
If you need to borrow heavily, inflate the money supply and debase your currency to achieve better looking numbers - you are doing it wrong.
You may create an illusion of prosperity but it will crash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027576</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yup, seems to me like an obvious case of the broken window parable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yup , seems to me like an obvious case of the broken window parable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yup, seems to me like an obvious case of the broken window parable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021428</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1257693660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill, everyone (except the fat insurance companies) admitted that things had to change, and so this is a start</p></div></blockquote><p>Actually, the insurance companies love this bill.  They get millions of new customers who are going to be paying premiums, but not using much in the way of medical services - clear profit for them.
</p><p>I've read that the drug companies like it too.  Apparently it extends the period before "generic" drugs can be made available, thus letting them sell higher-priced drugs for longer.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill , everyone ( except the fat insurance companies ) admitted that things had to change , and so this is a startActually , the insurance companies love this bill .
They get millions of new customers who are going to be paying premiums , but not using much in the way of medical services - clear profit for them .
I 've read that the drug companies like it too .
Apparently it extends the period before " generic " drugs can be made available , thus letting them sell higher-priced drugs for longer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so health care reform bill has passed it first step - actually a move forward even if you dont like the bill, everyone (except the fat insurance companies) admitted that things had to change, and so this is a startActually, the insurance companies love this bill.
They get millions of new customers who are going to be paying premiums, but not using much in the way of medical services - clear profit for them.
I've read that the drug companies like it too.
Apparently it extends the period before "generic" drugs can be made available, thus letting them sell higher-priced drugs for longer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022144</id>
	<title>Entreprenuer</title>
	<author>mevets</author>
	<datestamp>1257698460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am an independent, freelance software developer.   I am the primary earner in a family of five.  Universal medical care helped allow me to take the opportunity to make the jump, and in 6 years, there has been no looking back.   Without it, fear would likely have kept me at my last employer.</p><p>I think your moves in this will be liberating; and there will be many unforeseen benefits.   I hope you have the stamina to hold out over the rough patches.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am an independent , freelance software developer .
I am the primary earner in a family of five .
Universal medical care helped allow me to take the opportunity to make the jump , and in 6 years , there has been no looking back .
Without it , fear would likely have kept me at my last employer.I think your moves in this will be liberating ; and there will be many unforeseen benefits .
I hope you have the stamina to hold out over the rough patches .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am an independent, freelance software developer.
I am the primary earner in a family of five.
Universal medical care helped allow me to take the opportunity to make the jump, and in 6 years, there has been no looking back.
Without it, fear would likely have kept me at my last employer.I think your moves in this will be liberating; and there will be many unforeseen benefits.
I hope you have the stamina to hold out over the rough patches.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023218</id>
	<title>Constitutionality</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1257704880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Article III. Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.</p></div></blockquote><p>Congress is neither qualified nor empowered to decide the constitutionality of the bill. Nor are we Slashdot commenters. It's the duty of the Supreme Court to decide that.</p><blockquote><div><p>Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;</p></div></blockquote><p>We already impose many conditional taxes that vary depending on whether you're married, have children, or own a house. It's not such an astounding stretch to impose a tax that depends on whether you have health insurance. And imposing a tax on those without health insurance so that everyone has access to affordable health insurance could be construed as providing for the general welfare of the United States.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Article III .
Section 1 .
The judicial power of the United States , shall be vested in one Supreme Court , and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.Congress is neither qualified nor empowered to decide the constitutionality of the bill .
Nor are we Slashdot commenters .
It 's the duty of the Supreme Court to decide that.Article I. Section 8 .
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes , duties , imposts and excises , to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States ; We already impose many conditional taxes that vary depending on whether you 're married , have children , or own a house .
It 's not such an astounding stretch to impose a tax that depends on whether you have health insurance .
And imposing a tax on those without health insurance so that everyone has access to affordable health insurance could be construed as providing for the general welfare of the United States .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article III.
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.Congress is neither qualified nor empowered to decide the constitutionality of the bill.
Nor are we Slashdot commenters.
It's the duty of the Supreme Court to decide that.Article I. Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;We already impose many conditional taxes that vary depending on whether you're married, have children, or own a house.
It's not such an astounding stretch to impose a tax that depends on whether you have health insurance.
And imposing a tax on those without health insurance so that everyone has access to affordable health insurance could be construed as providing for the general welfare of the United States.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021002</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1257690600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail. It sounds like Massachusetts.</p></div><p>No, it sounds like a reasonable society. I'll use a car analogy because it's a lot clearer there: If you don't have a car insurance, and you crash into me, that is <b>my</b> problem, not yours. Most people who don't have insurance are also too broke to cover the damage themselves. So a law that forces you to have at least enough insurance to cover the <b>other guy's</b> costs is a very reasonable thing.</p><p>It's a lot more indirect for health insurance, but the argument is similar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see... Buy insurance , or go to jail .
It sounds like Massachusetts.No , it sounds like a reasonable society .
I 'll use a car analogy because it 's a lot clearer there : If you do n't have a car insurance , and you crash into me , that is my problem , not yours .
Most people who do n't have insurance are also too broke to cover the damage themselves .
So a law that forces you to have at least enough insurance to cover the other guy 's costs is a very reasonable thing.It 's a lot more indirect for health insurance , but the argument is similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail.
It sounds like Massachusetts.No, it sounds like a reasonable society.
I'll use a car analogy because it's a lot clearer there: If you don't have a car insurance, and you crash into me, that is my problem, not yours.
Most people who don't have insurance are also too broke to cover the damage themselves.
So a law that forces you to have at least enough insurance to cover the other guy's costs is a very reasonable thing.It's a lot more indirect for health insurance, but the argument is similar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022416</id>
	<title>I love all these comments....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257700200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love all these comments praising this bill as "providing health care! YAYAYAYAY!!!!!"  Nothing in this bill provides anyone with health care - what it DOES provide is a MANDATE that YOU MUST PURCHASE health care of some form (baseline plan is $15k) or you go to PRISON.  Now would you care to explain how that is "compassionate" or "affordable" to ANYONE?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love all these comments praising this bill as " providing health care !
YAYAYAYAY ! ! ! ! ! " Nothing in this bill provides anyone with health care - what it DOES provide is a MANDATE that YOU MUST PURCHASE health care of some form ( baseline plan is $ 15k ) or you go to PRISON .
Now would you care to explain how that is " compassionate " or " affordable " to ANYONE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love all these comments praising this bill as "providing health care!
YAYAYAYAY!!!!!"  Nothing in this bill provides anyone with health care - what it DOES provide is a MANDATE that YOU MUST PURCHASE health care of some form (baseline plan is $15k) or you go to PRISON.
Now would you care to explain how that is "compassionate" or "affordable" to ANYONE?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021492</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>atriusofbricia</author>
	<datestamp>1257694020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You mean like the horrible death that so many Americans die every month, because "health" insurance companies only "insure" you, when you don't need it, and tell you to GTFO, as soon as you actually need them, thereby running a giant fraud on all of you?</p><p>I mean, helloooo... you *bought* a service, that pays for your (totally out of its actual worth) medical bills. And they won't pay. Which is a breach of contract. Except that the fine print is written in a way, that actually excludes everything, and if translated, states that you just pay for getting nothing at all. Which would be criminal if written in plain English.</p><p>Then you go to a "doctor" who gets payed only as long as you are sick. And whose information on what to do is based on fake magazines from the pharma industry. Who also only makes money if you are sick. So he gives you pills that don't do much. Just hide the symptoms a bit. And make sure they all come back right after you stopped taking them. Which would also being the criminal offense of drugging people. Except of course if you buy some senators. Which is really cheap nowadays.</p><p>I wonder how you people even <em>survive</em>. I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the "health" industry's ass, when they then get denied coverage, and have to die. Slowly. And painfully. (They should look happy. After all there is no government death panel involved. Just plain old death-by-market.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)</p></div><p>Wow... You really believe the entire health care/insurance industry is a super massive conspiracy? Really?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like the horrible death that so many Americans die every month , because " health " insurance companies only " insure " you , when you do n't need it , and tell you to GTFO , as soon as you actually need them , thereby running a giant fraud on all of you ? I mean , helloooo... you * bought * a service , that pays for your ( totally out of its actual worth ) medical bills .
And they wo n't pay .
Which is a breach of contract .
Except that the fine print is written in a way , that actually excludes everything , and if translated , states that you just pay for getting nothing at all .
Which would be criminal if written in plain English.Then you go to a " doctor " who gets payed only as long as you are sick .
And whose information on what to do is based on fake magazines from the pharma industry .
Who also only makes money if you are sick .
So he gives you pills that do n't do much .
Just hide the symptoms a bit .
And make sure they all come back right after you stopped taking them .
Which would also being the criminal offense of drugging people .
Except of course if you buy some senators .
Which is really cheap nowadays.I wonder how you people even survive .
I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the " health " industry 's ass , when they then get denied coverage , and have to die .
Slowly. And painfully .
( They should look happy .
After all there is no government death panel involved .
Just plain old death-by-market .
: P ) Wow... You really believe the entire health care/insurance industry is a super massive conspiracy ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like the horrible death that so many Americans die every month, because "health" insurance companies only "insure" you, when you don't need it, and tell you to GTFO, as soon as you actually need them, thereby running a giant fraud on all of you?I mean, helloooo... you *bought* a service, that pays for your (totally out of its actual worth) medical bills.
And they won't pay.
Which is a breach of contract.
Except that the fine print is written in a way, that actually excludes everything, and if translated, states that you just pay for getting nothing at all.
Which would be criminal if written in plain English.Then you go to a "doctor" who gets payed only as long as you are sick.
And whose information on what to do is based on fake magazines from the pharma industry.
Who also only makes money if you are sick.
So he gives you pills that don't do much.
Just hide the symptoms a bit.
And make sure they all come back right after you stopped taking them.
Which would also being the criminal offense of drugging people.
Except of course if you buy some senators.
Which is really cheap nowadays.I wonder how you people even survive.
I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the "health" industry's ass, when they then get denied coverage, and have to die.
Slowly. And painfully.
(They should look happy.
After all there is no government death panel involved.
Just plain old death-by-market.
:P)Wow... You really believe the entire health care/insurance industry is a super massive conspiracy?
Really?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028052</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257695400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Children deserve the right to live. period.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Children deserve the right to live .
period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Children deserve the right to live.
period.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022390</id>
	<title>And capitalism is great!</title>
	<author>non0score</author>
	<datestamp>1257700080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until they finish taking all your moneys. Socialism is a dog eat dog world, man. And capitalism is just the other way around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until they finish taking all your moneys .
Socialism is a dog eat dog world , man .
And capitalism is just the other way around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until they finish taking all your moneys.
Socialism is a dog eat dog world, man.
And capitalism is just the other way around.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022078</id>
	<title>Citation needed: decifit and undocumented aliens</title>
	<author>Andrealp</author>
	<datestamp>1257698040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bill has short term costs, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis says that the bill will " yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period", so if your objections to the bill are deficit related you are being intellectually dishonest. (1.) Contrary to certain misinformation, the bill also explicitly forbids undocumented aliens from receiving federal assistance under the proposed subsidization program. (2.) If you are going to make a claim, use a reference.<p>
1. <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell\_mgr\_amendment\_update.pdf" title="cbo.gov" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell\_mgr\_amendment\_update.pdf</a> [cbo.gov], pg. 1.</p><p>
2. <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111j3JbX9:e330194:,SEC" title="loc.gov" rel="nofollow">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111j3JbX9:e330194:,SEC</a> [loc.gov]. 347. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bill has short term costs , but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis says that the bill will " yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $ 109 billion over the 2010-2019 period " , so if your objections to the bill are deficit related you are being intellectually dishonest .
( 1. ) Contrary to certain misinformation , the bill also explicitly forbids undocumented aliens from receiving federal assistance under the proposed subsidization program .
( 2. ) If you are going to make a claim , use a reference .
1. http : //www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell \ _mgr \ _amendment \ _update.pdf [ cbo.gov ] , pg .
1 . 2. http : //thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F ? c111 : 1 : ./temp/ ~ c111j3JbX9 : e330194 : ,SEC [ loc.gov ] .
347. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bill has short term costs, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office analysis says that the bill will " yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $109 billion over the 2010-2019 period", so if your objections to the bill are deficit related you are being intellectually dishonest.
(1.) Contrary to certain misinformation, the bill also explicitly forbids undocumented aliens from receiving federal assistance under the proposed subsidization program.
(2.) If you are going to make a claim, use a reference.
1. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/hr3962Dingell\_mgr\_amendment\_update.pdf [cbo.gov], pg.
1.
2. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111j3JbX9:e330194:,SEC [loc.gov].
347. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026298</id>
	<title>Re:How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>garote</author>
	<datestamp>1257683040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your itinerary, if executed, would essentially turn all health insurance providers into tightly government-regulated clones of each other.<br>Why not simply eliminate the middleman, and socialize health insurance?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your itinerary , if executed , would essentially turn all health insurance providers into tightly government-regulated clones of each other.Why not simply eliminate the middleman , and socialize health insurance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your itinerary, if executed, would essentially turn all health insurance providers into tightly government-regulated clones of each other.Why not simply eliminate the middleman, and socialize health insurance?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021332</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1257693000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you really think the insurance companies didn't want this? This bill is a huge victory for them. You now have no choice other than to buy their products.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really think the insurance companies did n't want this ?
This bill is a huge victory for them .
You now have no choice other than to buy their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really think the insurance companies didn't want this?
This bill is a huge victory for them.
You now have no choice other than to buy their products.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021526</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>DustyShadow</author>
	<datestamp>1257694260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The car analogy fails because driving is a privilege. You can choose to not drive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The car analogy fails because driving is a privilege .
You can choose to not drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The car analogy fails because driving is a privilege.
You can choose to not drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021896</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257696780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the "health" industry's ass, when they then get denied coverage, and have to die. Slowly. And painfully."</p><p>You are more certain to see the faces of those people who are told they have to wait 3 months for that kidney transplant or are given a pill for a heart condition and sent home because of rationing and end up dying slowly and painfully.</p><p>Of course, if they can afford a ticket to Asia, they can still get great quality care there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the " health " industry 's ass , when they then get denied coverage , and have to die .
Slowly. And painfully .
" You are more certain to see the faces of those people who are told they have to wait 3 months for that kidney transplant or are given a pill for a heart condition and sent home because of rationing and end up dying slowly and painfully.Of course , if they can afford a ticket to Asia , they can still get great quality care there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the "health" industry's ass, when they then get denied coverage, and have to die.
Slowly. And painfully.
"You are more certain to see the faces of those people who are told they have to wait 3 months for that kidney transplant or are given a pill for a heart condition and sent home because of rationing and end up dying slowly and painfully.Of course, if they can afford a ticket to Asia, they can still get great quality care there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020994</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021262</id>
	<title>Wait, $1.2 TRILLION??!</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1257692580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're at $12 trillion <a href="http://www.brillig.com/debt\_clock/" title="brillig.com" rel="nofollow">already</a> [brillig.com], how exactly are we going to pay for this? Sooner or later, the economy will improve, interest rates will go up, and the only way we'll get out is by printing trillions and trillions of dollars to give to China, Japan and the others, effectively ending the US dollar's role as a currency (and a whole host of other consequences).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're at $ 12 trillion already [ brillig.com ] , how exactly are we going to pay for this ?
Sooner or later , the economy will improve , interest rates will go up , and the only way we 'll get out is by printing trillions and trillions of dollars to give to China , Japan and the others , effectively ending the US dollar 's role as a currency ( and a whole host of other consequences ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're at $12 trillion already [brillig.com], how exactly are we going to pay for this?
Sooner or later, the economy will improve, interest rates will go up, and the only way we'll get out is by printing trillions and trillions of dollars to give to China, Japan and the others, effectively ending the US dollar's role as a currency (and a whole host of other consequences).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027612</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really? citation on the Reagan stimulus package please.  As I remember he cut taxes. That is nowhere near the backasswards bailout of banks and billions spent on new government office buidlings in Bush/Obama versions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ?
citation on the Reagan stimulus package please .
As I remember he cut taxes .
That is nowhere near the backasswards bailout of banks and billions spent on new government office buidlings in Bush/Obama versions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?
citation on the Reagan stimulus package please.
As I remember he cut taxes.
That is nowhere near the backasswards bailout of banks and billions spent on new government office buidlings in Bush/Obama versions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020984</id>
	<title>BBC comment</title>
	<author>philwebs</author>
	<datestamp>1257690480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Glad I dont live in the land of the free.

Article from the BBC:

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from\_our\_own\_correspondent/8345341.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from\_our\_own\_correspondent/8345341.stm</a> [bbc.co.uk]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Glad I dont live in the land of the free .
Article from the BBC : http : //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from \ _our \ _own \ _correspondent/8345341.stm [ bbc.co.uk ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Glad I dont live in the land of the free.
Article from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from\_our\_own\_correspondent/8345341.stm [bbc.co.uk]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30032988</id>
	<title>Re:How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257783000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like how this was modded up to 5, insightful. Now, how about getting someone on here to admit that this is basically the Republican/Conservative platform for health care reform?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like how this was modded up to 5 , insightful .
Now , how about getting someone on here to admit that this is basically the Republican/Conservative platform for health care reform ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like how this was modded up to 5, insightful.
Now, how about getting someone on here to admit that this is basically the Republican/Conservative platform for health care reform?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023416</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget ... privacy destroying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257706020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In my experience, medical privacy is a joke. Despite HIPAA, everyone in every medical office you've ever been to has access to every part of your chart and any history in it. There usually aren't any internal controls on who can read which parts of a patient's chart, so it kind of is a free-for-all. This is a necessary evil; even the back end office staff needs access to clinical information so they can convince the insurance companies that the procedures are necessary and should actually be paid for.</p><p>On top of that, as you go from office to office your personal information will be faxed back and forth, such that anybody walking by the machine can pick it up and read it, etc. Of course there's always the human factor you have to deal with also; when a patient tells a really juicy story to anybody other than a full MD, you can bet everybody will be joking about it in the breakroom after the patient leaves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , medical privacy is a joke .
Despite HIPAA , everyone in every medical office you 've ever been to has access to every part of your chart and any history in it .
There usually are n't any internal controls on who can read which parts of a patient 's chart , so it kind of is a free-for-all .
This is a necessary evil ; even the back end office staff needs access to clinical information so they can convince the insurance companies that the procedures are necessary and should actually be paid for.On top of that , as you go from office to office your personal information will be faxed back and forth , such that anybody walking by the machine can pick it up and read it , etc .
Of course there 's always the human factor you have to deal with also ; when a patient tells a really juicy story to anybody other than a full MD , you can bet everybody will be joking about it in the breakroom after the patient leaves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, medical privacy is a joke.
Despite HIPAA, everyone in every medical office you've ever been to has access to every part of your chart and any history in it.
There usually aren't any internal controls on who can read which parts of a patient's chart, so it kind of is a free-for-all.
This is a necessary evil; even the back end office staff needs access to clinical information so they can convince the insurance companies that the procedures are necessary and should actually be paid for.On top of that, as you go from office to office your personal information will be faxed back and forth, such that anybody walking by the machine can pick it up and read it, etc.
Of course there's always the human factor you have to deal with also; when a patient tells a really juicy story to anybody other than a full MD, you can bet everybody will be joking about it in the breakroom after the patient leaves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020994</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257690540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like the horrible death that so many Americans die every month, because "health" insurance companies only "insure" you, when you don't need it, and tell you to GTFO, as soon as you actually need them, thereby running a giant fraud on all of you?</p><p>I mean, helloooo... you *bought* a service, that pays for your (totally out of its actual worth) medical bills. And they won't pay. Which is a breach of contract. Except that the fine print is written in a way, that actually excludes everything, and if translated, states that you just pay for getting nothing at all. Which would be criminal if written in plain English.</p><p>Then you go to a "doctor" who gets payed only as long as you are sick. And whose information on what to do is based on fake magazines from the pharma industry. Who also only makes money if you are sick. So he gives you pills that don't do much. Just hide the symptoms a bit. And make sure they all come back right after you stopped taking them. Which would also being the criminal offense of drugging people. Except of course if you buy some senators. Which is really cheap nowadays.</p><p>I wonder how you people even <em>survive</em>. I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the "health" industry's ass, when they then get denied coverage, and have to die. Slowly. And painfully. (They should look happy. After all there is no government death panel involved. Just plain old death-by-market.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like the horrible death that so many Americans die every month , because " health " insurance companies only " insure " you , when you do n't need it , and tell you to GTFO , as soon as you actually need them , thereby running a giant fraud on all of you ? I mean , helloooo... you * bought * a service , that pays for your ( totally out of its actual worth ) medical bills .
And they wo n't pay .
Which is a breach of contract .
Except that the fine print is written in a way , that actually excludes everything , and if translated , states that you just pay for getting nothing at all .
Which would be criminal if written in plain English.Then you go to a " doctor " who gets payed only as long as you are sick .
And whose information on what to do is based on fake magazines from the pharma industry .
Who also only makes money if you are sick .
So he gives you pills that do n't do much .
Just hide the symptoms a bit .
And make sure they all come back right after you stopped taking them .
Which would also being the criminal offense of drugging people .
Except of course if you buy some senators .
Which is really cheap nowadays.I wonder how you people even survive .
I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the " health " industry 's ass , when they then get denied coverage , and have to die .
Slowly. And painfully .
( They should look happy .
After all there is no government death panel involved .
Just plain old death-by-market .
: P )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like the horrible death that so many Americans die every month, because "health" insurance companies only "insure" you, when you don't need it, and tell you to GTFO, as soon as you actually need them, thereby running a giant fraud on all of you?I mean, helloooo... you *bought* a service, that pays for your (totally out of its actual worth) medical bills.
And they won't pay.
Which is a breach of contract.
Except that the fine print is written in a way, that actually excludes everything, and if translated, states that you just pay for getting nothing at all.
Which would be criminal if written in plain English.Then you go to a "doctor" who gets payed only as long as you are sick.
And whose information on what to do is based on fake magazines from the pharma industry.
Who also only makes money if you are sick.
So he gives you pills that don't do much.
Just hide the symptoms a bit.
And make sure they all come back right after you stopped taking them.
Which would also being the criminal offense of drugging people.
Except of course if you buy some senators.
Which is really cheap nowadays.I wonder how you people even survive.
I wish I could see the faces of those people who oppose a health care bill that kicks the "health" industry's ass, when they then get denied coverage, and have to die.
Slowly. And painfully.
(They should look happy.
After all there is no government death panel involved.
Just plain old death-by-market.
:P)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020910</id>
	<title>Overheads</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257689700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1990 pages? Maybe this is a clue as to why health care is so expensive?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1990 pages ?
Maybe this is a clue as to why health care is so expensive ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1990 pages?
Maybe this is a clue as to why health care is so expensive?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022170</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Overzeetop</author>
	<datestamp>1257698640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, I'm disappointed that Obama didn't push his pre-election idea of extending the Federal Employee Health Benefits enrollment to every citizen. Yes, it's expensive, though no more than private "full" insurance, but it's good, and the group includes all the federal retirees - so it's not like the group would get worse.</p><p>I do find it funny that there's such an outcry that 1.2T over 10 years to get most people health insurance is a big number, but 1.5T to bail out the banks and economy over an 8 month period doesn't have people in the streets with pitchforks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , I 'm disappointed that Obama did n't push his pre-election idea of extending the Federal Employee Health Benefits enrollment to every citizen .
Yes , it 's expensive , though no more than private " full " insurance , but it 's good , and the group includes all the federal retirees - so it 's not like the group would get worse.I do find it funny that there 's such an outcry that 1.2T over 10 years to get most people health insurance is a big number , but 1.5T to bail out the banks and economy over an 8 month period does n't have people in the streets with pitchforks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, I'm disappointed that Obama didn't push his pre-election idea of extending the Federal Employee Health Benefits enrollment to every citizen.
Yes, it's expensive, though no more than private "full" insurance, but it's good, and the group includes all the federal retirees - so it's not like the group would get worse.I do find it funny that there's such an outcry that 1.2T over 10 years to get most people health insurance is a big number, but 1.5T to bail out the banks and economy over an 8 month period doesn't have people in the streets with pitchforks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021652</id>
	<title>livefrm</title>
	<author>RainBowsk</author>
	<datestamp>1257694980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.livefrm.com/knight-koxp-game/" title="livefrm.com" rel="nofollow">Knight Koxp</a> [livefrm.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Knight Koxp [ livefrm.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Knight Koxp [livefrm.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024394</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>TooMuchToDo</author>
	<datestamp>1257713340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or I get to buy from the public option. Which I'll do just to make sure I don't support Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, or some other private health insurance organization. Vote with my dollars and all the jazz.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or I get to buy from the public option .
Which I 'll do just to make sure I do n't support Blue Cross/Blue Shield , Cigna , or some other private health insurance organization .
Vote with my dollars and all the jazz .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or I get to buy from the public option.
Which I'll do just to make sure I don't support Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Cigna, or some other private health insurance organization.
Vote with my dollars and all the jazz.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021332</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021124</id>
	<title>Loopholes?</title>
	<author>ddxexex</author>
	<datestamp>1257691860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.</p></div><p>So this sounds like a good thing to come from the bill, but does this mean that Insurance companies are going to pull a lot of new nasty tricks to increase their profit... What tricks exactly would they pull? There's bound to be a loop hole somewhere in the bill...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned , and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history .
In a further slap , the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.So this sounds like a good thing to come from the bill , but does this mean that Insurance companies are going to pull a lot of new nasty tricks to increase their profit... What tricks exactly would they pull ?
There 's bound to be a loop hole somewhere in the bill.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history.
In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price fixing and market allocation.So this sounds like a good thing to come from the bill, but does this mean that Insurance companies are going to pull a lot of new nasty tricks to increase their profit... What tricks exactly would they pull?
There's bound to be a loop hole somewhere in the bill...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022932</id>
	<title>Re:1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1257702960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let's be more clear, 1.2 Billion is the cost for 5 years, but will be raised over 10 years.   The benefits won't kick in until 2015, but the new taxes will start immediately. Presumably after 10 years there will need to be other forms of revenue to pay for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's be more clear , 1.2 Billion is the cost for 5 years , but will be raised over 10 years .
The benefits wo n't kick in until 2015 , but the new taxes will start immediately .
Presumably after 10 years there will need to be other forms of revenue to pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's be more clear, 1.2 Billion is the cost for 5 years, but will be raised over 10 years.
The benefits won't kick in until 2015, but the new taxes will start immediately.
Presumably after 10 years there will need to be other forms of revenue to pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025558</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1257677940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is nearly impossible in many areas of the country to avoid owning a car, due to the car centered culture and the lack of alternatives. If we had public transportation systems that worked well and more bike and pedestrian oriented cities, you could get by without it. Democrats have always pushed for more development of public transportation which would also help reduce energy consumption but as usual it is opposed to republicans who recieve donations from the oil companies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is nearly impossible in many areas of the country to avoid owning a car , due to the car centered culture and the lack of alternatives .
If we had public transportation systems that worked well and more bike and pedestrian oriented cities , you could get by without it .
Democrats have always pushed for more development of public transportation which would also help reduce energy consumption but as usual it is opposed to republicans who recieve donations from the oil companies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is nearly impossible in many areas of the country to avoid owning a car, due to the car centered culture and the lack of alternatives.
If we had public transportation systems that worked well and more bike and pedestrian oriented cities, you could get by without it.
Democrats have always pushed for more development of public transportation which would also help reduce energy consumption but as usual it is opposed to republicans who recieve donations from the oil companies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021508</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022956</id>
	<title>Re:1.2T = 120B per year</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257703080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get the numbers straight - that is one point two trillion (with a T) United States dollars.  While the dollar is not worth as much as it used to be, that is still a lot of money.  That is one hundred twenty billion of those dollars per year, or four hundred dollars per person per year.  That is whether you have health insurance or not; you, as a taxpayer, would be on the hook for that four hundred dollars each and every one of those ten years.  In other words, a total bill of four thousand US dollars per taxpayer over the life of the bill.  And those are just the direct costs, and that is assuming the CBO did NOT lowball the numbers (as they have habitually done over their lifetime).  What weren't scored are indirect costs, defrayed costs, passed-down cost-inflation, etc.</p><p>And you dare ask WHY the majority of polls are against the original House bill (pre-Stupak Amendment)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get the numbers straight - that is one point two trillion ( with a T ) United States dollars .
While the dollar is not worth as much as it used to be , that is still a lot of money .
That is one hundred twenty billion of those dollars per year , or four hundred dollars per person per year .
That is whether you have health insurance or not ; you , as a taxpayer , would be on the hook for that four hundred dollars each and every one of those ten years .
In other words , a total bill of four thousand US dollars per taxpayer over the life of the bill .
And those are just the direct costs , and that is assuming the CBO did NOT lowball the numbers ( as they have habitually done over their lifetime ) .
What were n't scored are indirect costs , defrayed costs , passed-down cost-inflation , etc.And you dare ask WHY the majority of polls are against the original House bill ( pre-Stupak Amendment ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get the numbers straight - that is one point two trillion (with a T) United States dollars.
While the dollar is not worth as much as it used to be, that is still a lot of money.
That is one hundred twenty billion of those dollars per year, or four hundred dollars per person per year.
That is whether you have health insurance or not; you, as a taxpayer, would be on the hook for that four hundred dollars each and every one of those ten years.
In other words, a total bill of four thousand US dollars per taxpayer over the life of the bill.
And those are just the direct costs, and that is assuming the CBO did NOT lowball the numbers (as they have habitually done over their lifetime).
What weren't scored are indirect costs, defrayed costs, passed-down cost-inflation, etc.And you dare ask WHY the majority of polls are against the original House bill (pre-Stupak Amendment)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022638</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>forkazoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257701580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance? On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition. We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.</p></div></blockquote><p>Huzzah!  If the government taxes me and provides a service, I'm okay with that.  (Single Payer.)</p><p>If the government says I must buy some service from a private company, then I am living in Gilliam's Brazil, and people should be shot.</p><p>The insurance companies have no right to exist, and no right to my money.  People say that increasing pool size will bring down costs, but the insurance companies will just pocket the savings.  There is no reason to believe that they would reduce cost to consumers because you remove the key defining force of the market.  Business must entice buyers to the market with valuable goods and services.  Once you make purchasing mandatory, businesses no longer have to compete with the competetive market force of 'Fuck You.'</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance ?
On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition .
We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.Huzzah !
If the government taxes me and provides a service , I 'm okay with that .
( Single Payer .
) If the government says I must buy some service from a private company , then I am living in Gilliam 's Brazil , and people should be shot.The insurance companies have no right to exist , and no right to my money .
People say that increasing pool size will bring down costs , but the insurance companies will just pocket the savings .
There is no reason to believe that they would reduce cost to consumers because you remove the key defining force of the market .
Business must entice buyers to the market with valuable goods and services .
Once you make purchasing mandatory , businesses no longer have to compete with the competetive market force of 'Fuck You .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?
On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition.
We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.Huzzah!
If the government taxes me and provides a service, I'm okay with that.
(Single Payer.
)If the government says I must buy some service from a private company, then I am living in Gilliam's Brazil, and people should be shot.The insurance companies have no right to exist, and no right to my money.
People say that increasing pool size will bring down costs, but the insurance companies will just pocket the savings.
There is no reason to believe that they would reduce cost to consumers because you remove the key defining force of the market.
Business must entice buyers to the market with valuable goods and services.
Once you make purchasing mandatory, businesses no longer have to compete with the competetive market force of 'Fuck You.
'
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How would this get paid for, I wonder? It's written by the same people that brought you "Cash for Clunkers" and the "Stimulus Package", and we know what came of THEM.</p></div><p>When it comes to this recession, the first stimulus package happened on George W. Bush's watch.</p><p>Also, Ronald Reagan passed a massive stimulus package as well. When inflation is factored in, it was larger than Obama's stimulus.</p><p>Even factoring in the Obama stimulus package, the vast majority of U.S. debt was accrued under the watch of Republican presidents.</p><p>Let's try to stay grounded in reality and realize that <i>both</i> dominant political parties in the U.S. spend too much. There is plenty of blame to go around. Partisan bickering is blinding Americans to the fact that the real problem is that the government is even allowed to spend money it doesn't have.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How would this get paid for , I wonder ?
It 's written by the same people that brought you " Cash for Clunkers " and the " Stimulus Package " , and we know what came of THEM.When it comes to this recession , the first stimulus package happened on George W. Bush 's watch.Also , Ronald Reagan passed a massive stimulus package as well .
When inflation is factored in , it was larger than Obama 's stimulus.Even factoring in the Obama stimulus package , the vast majority of U.S. debt was accrued under the watch of Republican presidents.Let 's try to stay grounded in reality and realize that both dominant political parties in the U.S. spend too much .
There is plenty of blame to go around .
Partisan bickering is blinding Americans to the fact that the real problem is that the government is even allowed to spend money it does n't have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would this get paid for, I wonder?
It's written by the same people that brought you "Cash for Clunkers" and the "Stimulus Package", and we know what came of THEM.When it comes to this recession, the first stimulus package happened on George W. Bush's watch.Also, Ronald Reagan passed a massive stimulus package as well.
When inflation is factored in, it was larger than Obama's stimulus.Even factoring in the Obama stimulus package, the vast majority of U.S. debt was accrued under the watch of Republican presidents.Let's try to stay grounded in reality and realize that both dominant political parties in the U.S. spend too much.
There is plenty of blame to go around.
Partisan bickering is blinding Americans to the fact that the real problem is that the government is even allowed to spend money it doesn't have.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028510</id>
	<title>Re:Don't forget ... privacy destroying</title>
	<author>Wolvenhaven</author>
	<datestamp>1257699240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which was the supreme court ruling in Roe vs. Wade and why that ruling along with the 10th amendment makes a federal healthcare system unconstitutional.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which was the supreme court ruling in Roe vs. Wade and why that ruling along with the 10th amendment makes a federal healthcare system unconstitutional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which was the supreme court ruling in Roe vs. Wade and why that ruling along with the 10th amendment makes a federal healthcare system unconstitutional.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021508</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>atriusofbricia</author>
	<datestamp>1257694140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail. It sounds like Massachusetts.</p></div><p>No, it sounds like a reasonable society. I'll use a car analogy because it's a lot clearer there: If you don't have a car insurance, and you crash into me, that is <b>my</b> problem, not yours. Most people who don't have insurance are also too broke to cover the damage themselves. So a law that forces you to have at least enough insurance to cover the <b>other guy's</b> costs is a very reasonable thing.</p><p>It's a lot more indirect for health insurance, but the argument is similar.</p></div><p>Except that with a car you can choose not to buy insurance by choosing not to buy a car and drive it on the public roads. Exactly how do I choose not to buy this insurance? Oh.. I can't? Not unless I want to go to jail or die. Sounds like extortion to me. It would be if you did it, why isn't it when the government does it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's see... Buy insurance , or go to jail .
It sounds like Massachusetts.No , it sounds like a reasonable society .
I 'll use a car analogy because it 's a lot clearer there : If you do n't have a car insurance , and you crash into me , that is my problem , not yours .
Most people who do n't have insurance are also too broke to cover the damage themselves .
So a law that forces you to have at least enough insurance to cover the other guy 's costs is a very reasonable thing.It 's a lot more indirect for health insurance , but the argument is similar.Except that with a car you can choose not to buy insurance by choosing not to buy a car and drive it on the public roads .
Exactly how do I choose not to buy this insurance ?
Oh.. I ca n't ?
Not unless I want to go to jail or die .
Sounds like extortion to me .
It would be if you did it , why is n't it when the government does it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's see... Buy insurance, or go to jail.
It sounds like Massachusetts.No, it sounds like a reasonable society.
I'll use a car analogy because it's a lot clearer there: If you don't have a car insurance, and you crash into me, that is my problem, not yours.
Most people who don't have insurance are also too broke to cover the damage themselves.
So a law that forces you to have at least enough insurance to cover the other guy's costs is a very reasonable thing.It's a lot more indirect for health insurance, but the argument is similar.Except that with a car you can choose not to buy insurance by choosing not to buy a car and drive it on the public roads.
Exactly how do I choose not to buy this insurance?
Oh.. I can't?
Not unless I want to go to jail or die.
Sounds like extortion to me.
It would be if you did it, why isn't it when the government does it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021314</id>
	<title>Re:Let's see..</title>
	<author>pooh666</author>
	<datestamp>1257692880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Great threats to the U.S.A: Debt? or U.S. Manufacturing jobs going overseas for the last 4 DECADES?  I wonder if one caused the other by any chance? Who got rich from that? Is the U.S debt our own special way of financing the biggest corporations who no longer feel that they have to have any dedication to their home country?  Fine blame the government, but then you cast a blind eye to entities much more powerful?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Great threats to the U.S.A : Debt ?
or U.S. Manufacturing jobs going overseas for the last 4 DECADES ?
I wonder if one caused the other by any chance ?
Who got rich from that ?
Is the U.S debt our own special way of financing the biggest corporations who no longer feel that they have to have any dedication to their home country ?
Fine blame the government , but then you cast a blind eye to entities much more powerful ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great threats to the U.S.A: Debt?
or U.S. Manufacturing jobs going overseas for the last 4 DECADES?
I wonder if one caused the other by any chance?
Who got rich from that?
Is the U.S debt our own special way of financing the biggest corporations who no longer feel that they have to have any dedication to their home country?
Fine blame the government, but then you cast a blind eye to entities much more powerful?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021684</id>
	<title>Re:A progressive measure.</title>
	<author>atriusofbricia</author>
	<datestamp>1257695220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I applaud this move heartily and am glad to see America finally catch up with the rest of the developed, Western world.  Forcing citizens to enter patronize particular corporate entities IS the way forward, and I'm glad Obama and the House can see that.  Once the citizen realizes he has to give up a large portion of his ability to make selfish INDIVIDUAL choices and act in accordance with that of the leaders of his or her nations, can they develop into a more moral, self-actualized human being.  I think this is also an indication that there is a shift towards America having less of this "me, me, me!" attitude and the country is starting to realize that freedom isn't individual greed, but something greater than they are--sacrifice and adherence to ones' governing body.  A more moral human being is one that follows the edicts of the body that rules it.  A good dog, after all, is not one that jumps the fence and goes where it pleases but one that runs to its master with leash in its mouth, wagging its tail.</p></div><p>Bloody brilliant!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I applaud this move heartily and am glad to see America finally catch up with the rest of the developed , Western world .
Forcing citizens to enter patronize particular corporate entities IS the way forward , and I 'm glad Obama and the House can see that .
Once the citizen realizes he has to give up a large portion of his ability to make selfish INDIVIDUAL choices and act in accordance with that of the leaders of his or her nations , can they develop into a more moral , self-actualized human being .
I think this is also an indication that there is a shift towards America having less of this " me , me , me !
" attitude and the country is starting to realize that freedom is n't individual greed , but something greater than they are--sacrifice and adherence to ones ' governing body .
A more moral human being is one that follows the edicts of the body that rules it .
A good dog , after all , is not one that jumps the fence and goes where it pleases but one that runs to its master with leash in its mouth , wagging its tail.Bloody brilliant !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I applaud this move heartily and am glad to see America finally catch up with the rest of the developed, Western world.
Forcing citizens to enter patronize particular corporate entities IS the way forward, and I'm glad Obama and the House can see that.
Once the citizen realizes he has to give up a large portion of his ability to make selfish INDIVIDUAL choices and act in accordance with that of the leaders of his or her nations, can they develop into a more moral, self-actualized human being.
I think this is also an indication that there is a shift towards America having less of this "me, me, me!
" attitude and the country is starting to realize that freedom isn't individual greed, but something greater than they are--sacrifice and adherence to ones' governing body.
A more moral human being is one that follows the edicts of the body that rules it.
A good dog, after all, is not one that jumps the fence and goes where it pleases but one that runs to its master with leash in its mouth, wagging its tail.Bloody brilliant!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021110</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021098</id>
	<title>An improvement, but not as good as it could be.</title>
	<author>Eravnrekaree</author>
	<datestamp>1257691620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am sure this bill will certainly help many of those who cannot afford insurance and will now recieve it. However that does not mean i think it is the perfect bill, however we will be better off with it. It does not regulate insurance companies enough, included in the bill should have been a CEO pay cap, to open p the finances of private companies to be audited and requiring them to reduce their overhead, eliminate advertising budgets, and use all of the money for providing health insurance coverage and capped salaries to their employees. Only then can we be certain that money being paid into these companies is not going to some fat cat CEO while the companies deny claims for life saving treatments as they do now. Private insurance today is pretty scammy and worthless, you often have to fight with the companies to get things covered. Hopefully the bill does set a basic coverage standard which covers everything essential. I have also always been a little skeptical of ideas of linking insurance to employment unless the insurance can continue seemlessly after employment or persons are transferred instantly to a government plan. The Public Option even in this bill is too weak and should have been set according to medicare's cost alignment rather than an average of private insurance. It is unclear whether it will survive the senate. Without the public option I would be concerned that the private companies will ruthlessly jack up rates and massively exploit the people, which could be controlled by the pay caps i mentioned above however and perhaps setting some price control or requiring that as i said the money be spent on actually providing health care. Better yet still would have been single payer, which ironically would be the most efficient, would have saved enough money considering that private insurance is 30\% inefficient while medicare is 4\% to provide insurance to everyone without spending any more money than we do now. That would save the lives of 40,000 children who die annually so some capitalist pig CEO can get rich. The single payer in progressive plans would be the least beauracratic, you would not have insurance company beauracrats deciding what health care you can get or deciding to deny stuff to help improve the profit margin. The single payer would gaurantee coverage of essential care, and not deny things to improve profit margins.</p><p>As far as rationing, the single payer and this bill both fight rationing. To be honest,  any system contains rationing. However, it is important to make sure that highest urgency  treatment is giving first priority, regardless of the patients income. Our current system rations in the worst possible way, according to ability to pay. It is genocidal to the poor since it guarantees health care to the rich and denies it to the poor. I don't want to hear this idea that people who make money contribute more. that is a lie. Try telling that to the overworked factory slave laborer or field worker who harvests the food you eat who works out in the hot sun all day making $5 an hour. It is usually the case that the hardest working people who do the most essential thing, bringing food to your table, make the least.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure this bill will certainly help many of those who can not afford insurance and will now recieve it .
However that does not mean i think it is the perfect bill , however we will be better off with it .
It does not regulate insurance companies enough , included in the bill should have been a CEO pay cap , to open p the finances of private companies to be audited and requiring them to reduce their overhead , eliminate advertising budgets , and use all of the money for providing health insurance coverage and capped salaries to their employees .
Only then can we be certain that money being paid into these companies is not going to some fat cat CEO while the companies deny claims for life saving treatments as they do now .
Private insurance today is pretty scammy and worthless , you often have to fight with the companies to get things covered .
Hopefully the bill does set a basic coverage standard which covers everything essential .
I have also always been a little skeptical of ideas of linking insurance to employment unless the insurance can continue seemlessly after employment or persons are transferred instantly to a government plan .
The Public Option even in this bill is too weak and should have been set according to medicare 's cost alignment rather than an average of private insurance .
It is unclear whether it will survive the senate .
Without the public option I would be concerned that the private companies will ruthlessly jack up rates and massively exploit the people , which could be controlled by the pay caps i mentioned above however and perhaps setting some price control or requiring that as i said the money be spent on actually providing health care .
Better yet still would have been single payer , which ironically would be the most efficient , would have saved enough money considering that private insurance is 30 \ % inefficient while medicare is 4 \ % to provide insurance to everyone without spending any more money than we do now .
That would save the lives of 40,000 children who die annually so some capitalist pig CEO can get rich .
The single payer in progressive plans would be the least beauracratic , you would not have insurance company beauracrats deciding what health care you can get or deciding to deny stuff to help improve the profit margin .
The single payer would gaurantee coverage of essential care , and not deny things to improve profit margins.As far as rationing , the single payer and this bill both fight rationing .
To be honest , any system contains rationing .
However , it is important to make sure that highest urgency treatment is giving first priority , regardless of the patients income .
Our current system rations in the worst possible way , according to ability to pay .
It is genocidal to the poor since it guarantees health care to the rich and denies it to the poor .
I do n't want to hear this idea that people who make money contribute more .
that is a lie .
Try telling that to the overworked factory slave laborer or field worker who harvests the food you eat who works out in the hot sun all day making $ 5 an hour .
It is usually the case that the hardest working people who do the most essential thing , bringing food to your table , make the least .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure this bill will certainly help many of those who cannot afford insurance and will now recieve it.
However that does not mean i think it is the perfect bill, however we will be better off with it.
It does not regulate insurance companies enough, included in the bill should have been a CEO pay cap, to open p the finances of private companies to be audited and requiring them to reduce their overhead, eliminate advertising budgets, and use all of the money for providing health insurance coverage and capped salaries to their employees.
Only then can we be certain that money being paid into these companies is not going to some fat cat CEO while the companies deny claims for life saving treatments as they do now.
Private insurance today is pretty scammy and worthless, you often have to fight with the companies to get things covered.
Hopefully the bill does set a basic coverage standard which covers everything essential.
I have also always been a little skeptical of ideas of linking insurance to employment unless the insurance can continue seemlessly after employment or persons are transferred instantly to a government plan.
The Public Option even in this bill is too weak and should have been set according to medicare's cost alignment rather than an average of private insurance.
It is unclear whether it will survive the senate.
Without the public option I would be concerned that the private companies will ruthlessly jack up rates and massively exploit the people, which could be controlled by the pay caps i mentioned above however and perhaps setting some price control or requiring that as i said the money be spent on actually providing health care.
Better yet still would have been single payer, which ironically would be the most efficient, would have saved enough money considering that private insurance is 30\% inefficient while medicare is 4\% to provide insurance to everyone without spending any more money than we do now.
That would save the lives of 40,000 children who die annually so some capitalist pig CEO can get rich.
The single payer in progressive plans would be the least beauracratic, you would not have insurance company beauracrats deciding what health care you can get or deciding to deny stuff to help improve the profit margin.
The single payer would gaurantee coverage of essential care, and not deny things to improve profit margins.As far as rationing, the single payer and this bill both fight rationing.
To be honest,  any system contains rationing.
However, it is important to make sure that highest urgency  treatment is giving first priority, regardless of the patients income.
Our current system rations in the worst possible way, according to ability to pay.
It is genocidal to the poor since it guarantees health care to the rich and denies it to the poor.
I don't want to hear this idea that people who make money contribute more.
that is a lie.
Try telling that to the overworked factory slave laborer or field worker who harvests the food you eat who works out in the hot sun all day making $5 an hour.
It is usually the case that the hardest working people who do the most essential thing, bringing food to your table, make the least.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024652</id>
	<title>Re:How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>theCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1257671820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, if I decide to have my surgery in a hospital that has big screen TVs in every room and hot swimsuit models giving massages and sponge baths, that's OK, as long as the hospital charges everyone the same rate?  And based on #9, the insurance company would have to pay?</p><p>This example is a little extreme, but who would essentially set the prices for various procedures?  Arguably, one hospital could employ better doctors than another -- could they charge higher prices?  Would an insurer be justified in requiring that the patient go to a more cost effective hospital?  Would it matter based on the procedure -- setting a broken leg versus complicated brain surgery?</p><p>These are all tough questions.  I don't think the current bill of "lets make everyone buy health insurance -- that'll fix everything" will actually solve any real problems.</p><p>I don't really know what the answer is.  I do like your idea of divorcing health plans from employers.  There's really no reason to get your health insurance through your job.  Free, reliable health care for everybody seems like a great idea, but so does free cars, clothing, houses, and food.  And I don't know how to deliver any of those things.  The best I can do is Free Software, but that doesn't seem to translate very well into meat-space.</p><p>The free market sucks in many ways, especially for those who do not have money.  But it does do a pretty decent job of motivating people without a lot of difficult to manage bureaucracy.  Yes, there are problems, and yes, people get trampled upon.  Those that argue "why shouldn't the poor get healthcare" could just as easily say "why shouldn't the poor get food?"  Should we be pushing for "grocery store reform" so that food is handed out equally to everyone?</p><p>But if this health care insurance bill is what America wants, it is what America will get.  I just hope that the Federal government doesn't collapse too badly, or that if it does, the result isn't too bloody.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , if I decide to have my surgery in a hospital that has big screen TVs in every room and hot swimsuit models giving massages and sponge baths , that 's OK , as long as the hospital charges everyone the same rate ?
And based on # 9 , the insurance company would have to pay ? This example is a little extreme , but who would essentially set the prices for various procedures ?
Arguably , one hospital could employ better doctors than another -- could they charge higher prices ?
Would an insurer be justified in requiring that the patient go to a more cost effective hospital ?
Would it matter based on the procedure -- setting a broken leg versus complicated brain surgery ? These are all tough questions .
I do n't think the current bill of " lets make everyone buy health insurance -- that 'll fix everything " will actually solve any real problems.I do n't really know what the answer is .
I do like your idea of divorcing health plans from employers .
There 's really no reason to get your health insurance through your job .
Free , reliable health care for everybody seems like a great idea , but so does free cars , clothing , houses , and food .
And I do n't know how to deliver any of those things .
The best I can do is Free Software , but that does n't seem to translate very well into meat-space.The free market sucks in many ways , especially for those who do not have money .
But it does do a pretty decent job of motivating people without a lot of difficult to manage bureaucracy .
Yes , there are problems , and yes , people get trampled upon .
Those that argue " why should n't the poor get healthcare " could just as easily say " why should n't the poor get food ?
" Should we be pushing for " grocery store reform " so that food is handed out equally to everyone ? But if this health care insurance bill is what America wants , it is what America will get .
I just hope that the Federal government does n't collapse too badly , or that if it does , the result is n't too bloody .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, if I decide to have my surgery in a hospital that has big screen TVs in every room and hot swimsuit models giving massages and sponge baths, that's OK, as long as the hospital charges everyone the same rate?
And based on #9, the insurance company would have to pay?This example is a little extreme, but who would essentially set the prices for various procedures?
Arguably, one hospital could employ better doctors than another -- could they charge higher prices?
Would an insurer be justified in requiring that the patient go to a more cost effective hospital?
Would it matter based on the procedure -- setting a broken leg versus complicated brain surgery?These are all tough questions.
I don't think the current bill of "lets make everyone buy health insurance -- that'll fix everything" will actually solve any real problems.I don't really know what the answer is.
I do like your idea of divorcing health plans from employers.
There's really no reason to get your health insurance through your job.
Free, reliable health care for everybody seems like a great idea, but so does free cars, clothing, houses, and food.
And I don't know how to deliver any of those things.
The best I can do is Free Software, but that doesn't seem to translate very well into meat-space.The free market sucks in many ways, especially for those who do not have money.
But it does do a pretty decent job of motivating people without a lot of difficult to manage bureaucracy.
Yes, there are problems, and yes, people get trampled upon.
Those that argue "why shouldn't the poor get healthcare" could just as easily say "why shouldn't the poor get food?
"  Should we be pushing for "grocery store reform" so that food is handed out equally to everyone?But if this health care insurance bill is what America wants, it is what America will get.
I just hope that the Federal government doesn't collapse too badly, or that if it does, the result isn't too bloody.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024422</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257713580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The constitution says that a black person is only worth 3/5 a white person.  What's your point?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The constitution says that a black person is only worth 3/5 a white person .
What 's your point ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The constitution says that a black person is only worth 3/5 a white person.
What's your point?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020874</id>
	<title>Bill Itself: 220-215</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257689280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The final vote was a lot closer: 220 to 215. Which seems like a mid-20th century vote total. It really is quite remarkable that, in 2009, in the United States, there's still widespread debate and disagreement over the proposition that health care should <i>not</i> be rationed on the basis of ability to pay.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The final vote was a lot closer : 220 to 215 .
Which seems like a mid-20th century vote total .
It really is quite remarkable that , in 2009 , in the United States , there 's still widespread debate and disagreement over the proposition that health care should not be rationed on the basis of ability to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The final vote was a lot closer: 220 to 215.
Which seems like a mid-20th century vote total.
It really is quite remarkable that, in 2009, in the United States, there's still widespread debate and disagreement over the proposition that health care should not be rationed on the basis of ability to pay.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966</id>
	<title>Seems like the european socialist are out in force</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257690360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all of those posting their "welcome to the 21st century"  drivel there are two points you need to consider:</p><ol> <li>Our federal government is bought and paid for. This bill, if it becomes a law, forces the entire population of the US to purchase the insurance companies' product or go to jail. Leaving aside the issue of liberty, this is nothing more than corporate welfare (fascism)</li><li>The entire concept of "social welfare" permits people to consume more than they produce. In fact, it <i>encourages</i> this behavior. Determining how this incentive system can result in a bad outcome is left as an exercise for the reader</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all of those posting their " welcome to the 21st century " drivel there are two points you need to consider : Our federal government is bought and paid for .
This bill , if it becomes a law , forces the entire population of the US to purchase the insurance companies ' product or go to jail .
Leaving aside the issue of liberty , this is nothing more than corporate welfare ( fascism ) The entire concept of " social welfare " permits people to consume more than they produce .
In fact , it encourages this behavior .
Determining how this incentive system can result in a bad outcome is left as an exercise for the reader</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all of those posting their "welcome to the 21st century"  drivel there are two points you need to consider: Our federal government is bought and paid for.
This bill, if it becomes a law, forces the entire population of the US to purchase the insurance companies' product or go to jail.
Leaving aside the issue of liberty, this is nothing more than corporate welfare (fascism)The entire concept of "social welfare" permits people to consume more than they produce.
In fact, it encourages this behavior.
Determining how this incentive system can result in a bad outcome is left as an exercise for the reader</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027756</id>
	<title>Re:How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1257692640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't really know what the answer is. I do like your idea of divorcing health plans from employers. There's really no reason to get your health insurance through your job.</p></div><p>Taxes. If you know you're going to spend 10k or more per year on healthcare ANYWAY, it's appealing to an employer to offer to pay it directly and save the income taxes.  The same reason you see corporate cars, day-care, etc.  Except that this is a perk that's gotten particularly more pervasive to the point where it's expected and very difficult to do on your own.
<br> <br>
And there's no real synergy or comparative advantage from having your employer do these things.  I think the income tax system here is being a bad motivator.  Maybe we should start taxing benefits (but then how do you tax in-house benefits like day-care? I don't see an easy solution).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't really know what the answer is .
I do like your idea of divorcing health plans from employers .
There 's really no reason to get your health insurance through your job.Taxes .
If you know you 're going to spend 10k or more per year on healthcare ANYWAY , it 's appealing to an employer to offer to pay it directly and save the income taxes .
The same reason you see corporate cars , day-care , etc .
Except that this is a perk that 's gotten particularly more pervasive to the point where it 's expected and very difficult to do on your own .
And there 's no real synergy or comparative advantage from having your employer do these things .
I think the income tax system here is being a bad motivator .
Maybe we should start taxing benefits ( but then how do you tax in-house benefits like day-care ?
I do n't see an easy solution ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't really know what the answer is.
I do like your idea of divorcing health plans from employers.
There's really no reason to get your health insurance through your job.Taxes.
If you know you're going to spend 10k or more per year on healthcare ANYWAY, it's appealing to an employer to offer to pay it directly and save the income taxes.
The same reason you see corporate cars, day-care, etc.
Except that this is a perk that's gotten particularly more pervasive to the point where it's expected and very difficult to do on your own.
And there's no real synergy or comparative advantage from having your employer do these things.
I think the income tax system here is being a bad motivator.
Maybe we should start taxing benefits (but then how do you tax in-house benefits like day-care?
I don't see an easy solution).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021338</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>GearheadX</author>
	<datestamp>1257693000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Friend, that figure is off by a couple orders of magnitude.  I'm pretty sure that the administration itself claims to have created(or saved) only about 60,000 jobs or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Friend , that figure is off by a couple orders of magnitude .
I 'm pretty sure that the administration itself claims to have created ( or saved ) only about 60,000 jobs or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Friend, that figure is off by a couple orders of magnitude.
I'm pretty sure that the administration itself claims to have created(or saved) only about 60,000 jobs or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026502</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257684180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume by freshly printed money, you mean treasury bonds. Since that is what was most likely used to pay for the program. Given that various state and local governments benefit from tax and registration fees associated with new car purchases under the program, its hard to say the government is taking a 100\% loss on each dollar given out under this program. Let alone pulling cash out of a press to pay for it.</p><p>Secondly the cars are scrapped after trade in. Scrapping something isn't the same as incinerating it, as you seem too think. All the aluminium and steel doest just float off into some timeless void. It gets sold, and turned into more parts for cars. The full scrap value minus 50$ for the dealer was too be credited toward the purchase. As you can plainly see here http://www.cars.gov/</p><p>Now please make your objections reasonable and well thought out. Something like "Well the scrap markets are depressed right now, so it would be better to hold onto the junked cars and pawn them in 5 years" At least that criticism would take me more then 50 seconds to violate.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume by freshly printed money , you mean treasury bonds .
Since that is what was most likely used to pay for the program .
Given that various state and local governments benefit from tax and registration fees associated with new car purchases under the program , its hard to say the government is taking a 100 \ % loss on each dollar given out under this program .
Let alone pulling cash out of a press to pay for it.Secondly the cars are scrapped after trade in .
Scrapping something is n't the same as incinerating it , as you seem too think .
All the aluminium and steel doest just float off into some timeless void .
It gets sold , and turned into more parts for cars .
The full scrap value minus 50 $ for the dealer was too be credited toward the purchase .
As you can plainly see here http : //www.cars.gov/Now please make your objections reasonable and well thought out .
Something like " Well the scrap markets are depressed right now , so it would be better to hold onto the junked cars and pawn them in 5 years " At least that criticism would take me more then 50 seconds to violate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume by freshly printed money, you mean treasury bonds.
Since that is what was most likely used to pay for the program.
Given that various state and local governments benefit from tax and registration fees associated with new car purchases under the program, its hard to say the government is taking a 100\% loss on each dollar given out under this program.
Let alone pulling cash out of a press to pay for it.Secondly the cars are scrapped after trade in.
Scrapping something isn't the same as incinerating it, as you seem too think.
All the aluminium and steel doest just float off into some timeless void.
It gets sold, and turned into more parts for cars.
The full scrap value minus 50$ for the dealer was too be credited toward the purchase.
As you can plainly see here http://www.cars.gov/Now please make your objections reasonable and well thought out.
Something like "Well the scrap markets are depressed right now, so it would be better to hold onto the junked cars and pawn them in 5 years" At least that criticism would take me more then 50 seconds to violate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021400</id>
	<title>What does $1.2 Trillion get us??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257693420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not understand what $1.2 trillion is supposedly obtaining for us.</p><p>There's no public option, it's not going to cover signinificantly more people than the system already in place (96\%, leaves about 28 million people uncovered right? It doesn't assist anyone in buying insurance that already has it, it does not actually buy insurance for that that don't have already (except maybe moving people off medicare/medicaid to some other method. The "reform" portions of the bill, as they are don't look like they'll cost the Gov anything, it's a mandate.</p><p>What does the $1.2 Trillion get us that we don't already have in some form or another?!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not understand what $ 1.2 trillion is supposedly obtaining for us.There 's no public option , it 's not going to cover signinificantly more people than the system already in place ( 96 \ % , leaves about 28 million people uncovered right ?
It does n't assist anyone in buying insurance that already has it , it does not actually buy insurance for that that do n't have already ( except maybe moving people off medicare/medicaid to some other method .
The " reform " portions of the bill , as they are do n't look like they 'll cost the Gov anything , it 's a mandate.What does the $ 1.2 Trillion get us that we do n't already have in some form or another ? ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not understand what $1.2 trillion is supposedly obtaining for us.There's no public option, it's not going to cover signinificantly more people than the system already in place (96\%, leaves about 28 million people uncovered right?
It doesn't assist anyone in buying insurance that already has it, it does not actually buy insurance for that that don't have already (except maybe moving people off medicare/medicaid to some other method.
The "reform" portions of the bill, as they are don't look like they'll cost the Gov anything, it's a mandate.What does the $1.2 Trillion get us that we don't already have in some form or another?!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021424</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257693600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you wanna kill your Baby, fine; It's the law of the land until it is not.  But don't expect me to pay Thousands of dollars for your abortion because you couldn't spend $0.50 on a condom.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you wan na kill your Baby , fine ; It 's the law of the land until it is not .
But do n't expect me to pay Thousands of dollars for your abortion because you could n't spend $ 0.50 on a condom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you wanna kill your Baby, fine; It's the law of the land until it is not.
But don't expect me to pay Thousands of dollars for your abortion because you couldn't spend $0.50 on a condom.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022140</id>
	<title>It provides the satisfaction</title>
	<author>pkbarbiedoll</author>
	<datestamp>1257698460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>that our congress has, yet again, bailed out another industry.   Insurance corporations profits are going to go through the roof under this plan.  <p>Despite the scare tactics from the right, this bill is NOT national healthcare.  It is another fucking welfare check written to corporate America.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that our congress has , yet again , bailed out another industry .
Insurance corporations profits are going to go through the roof under this plan .
Despite the scare tactics from the right , this bill is NOT national healthcare .
It is another fucking welfare check written to corporate America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that our congress has, yet again, bailed out another industry.
Insurance corporations profits are going to go through the roof under this plan.
Despite the scare tactics from the right, this bill is NOT national healthcare.
It is another fucking welfare check written to corporate America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023192</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257704760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah! or car insurance! wait what?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah !
or car insurance !
wait what ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah!
or car insurance!
wait what?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029802</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>200\_success</author>
	<datestamp>1257799320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even in Canada, health care is the exclusive domain of the provinces, not the federal government.  There is no reason that health care reform has to be done at the federal level.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even in Canada , health care is the exclusive domain of the provinces , not the federal government .
There is no reason that health care reform has to be done at the federal level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even in Canada, health care is the exclusive domain of the provinces, not the federal government.
There is no reason that health care reform has to be done at the federal level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023400</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022108</id>
	<title>Are conservatives really this ignorant?</title>
	<author>pkbarbiedoll</author>
	<datestamp>1257698280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The bill provides a <b>mandate</b> for <b>private</b> insurance.   Only a small few will quality for the reduced (not free) public option.

<p>The rest of us, those who work from home or are otherwise self employed - will have to pay for insurance whether we need it or not.

</p><p>This bill is a bailout for the health insurance industry, not socialism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bill provides a mandate for private insurance .
Only a small few will quality for the reduced ( not free ) public option .
The rest of us , those who work from home or are otherwise self employed - will have to pay for insurance whether we need it or not .
This bill is a bailout for the health insurance industry , not socialism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bill provides a mandate for private insurance.
Only a small few will quality for the reduced (not free) public option.
The rest of us, those who work from home or are otherwise self employed - will have to pay for insurance whether we need it or not.
This bill is a bailout for the health insurance industry, not socialism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021512</id>
	<title>Re:*Sigh*</title>
	<author>Aquaseafoam</author>
	<datestamp>1257694200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Having to spend more money is going to get them out of the hole faster?

They're still not going to be able to afford healthcare, the only thing thats changed is that now they must pay for it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Having to spend more money is going to get them out of the hole faster ?
They 're still not going to be able to afford healthcare , the only thing thats changed is that now they must pay for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Having to spend more money is going to get them out of the hole faster?
They're still not going to be able to afford healthcare, the only thing thats changed is that now they must pay for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021058</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022074</id>
	<title>Re:Oh sweet</title>
	<author>zippthorne</author>
	<datestamp>1257698040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Um.. Maybe on your printer, using the straight text.</p><p>But the way the house actually formatted it, which is, I presume, their standard typesetting and therefore makes "page count" a relevant measure for comparing bills' length, it is indeed 1990 pages.  Her is a <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3962:" title="loc.gov">link</a> [loc.gov] which has a link to the 5 MB pdf version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Um.. Maybe on your printer , using the straight text.But the way the house actually formatted it , which is , I presume , their standard typesetting and therefore makes " page count " a relevant measure for comparing bills ' length , it is indeed 1990 pages .
Her is a link [ loc.gov ] which has a link to the 5 MB pdf version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um.. Maybe on your printer, using the straight text.But the way the house actually formatted it, which is, I presume, their standard typesetting and therefore makes "page count" a relevant measure for comparing bills' length, it is indeed 1990 pages.
Her is a link [loc.gov] which has a link to the 5 MB pdf version.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023158</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257704520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly.  And where in the constitution does it say the government can force you to buy police or fire protection, pay for military or border protection, or pay for roads or sewers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
And where in the constitution does it say the government can force you to buy police or fire protection , pay for military or border protection , or pay for roads or sewers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
And where in the constitution does it say the government can force you to buy police or fire protection, pay for military or border protection, or pay for roads or sewers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022688</id>
	<title>Attention Please: What We Know, Ain't So!</title>
	<author>Pridurki</author>
	<datestamp>1257701820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Health Care Mythology<br>
7/22/2009<br>

Clifford S. Asness, Ph.D.<br>

What We Know That Ain&rsquo;t So<br>
<br>
 <br>

Will Rogers[1] famously said, &ldquo;It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.&rdquo;  So it is with the health care debate in this country.  Quite a few &ldquo;facts&rdquo; offered to the public as truth are simply wrong and often intentionally misleading.  It seems clear that no truly productive solution will emerge when these false facts represent our common starting point.  So, this essay takes on the modest task of simply disabusing its readers of some untrue notions about health care. <br>
<br>
I do not take on the harder task of prescribing how we should (and if we should) reform health care, though I offer a few thoughts.  Important work must be done here by those who understand, far better than I, the details of health care provision.  However, no details are necessary for this essay, and no animals (though perhaps some egos) were harmed in its creation.  The fallacies I present are basic and it takes only a rational economic framework to expose them<br>
<br>
There are large groups of people in this country who want socialized medicine and they sense that the stars are aligning, and now is their time to succeed.  They rarely call it socialized medicine, but instead &ldquo;single payer health care&rdquo; or &ldquo;universal coverage&rdquo; or something that their public relations people have told them sounds better.  Whatever they call it, they believe (or pretend to believe) a lot of wrongheaded things, and they must be stopped.  Step one is understanding how and why they are wrong.  Step two is kicking their asses back to Cuba where they can get in line with Michael Moore for their free gastric bypasses.<br>
<br>
Finally, please read my standard disclosure (though it&rsquo;s more designed for something that might be construed as financial advice, it can&rsquo;t hurt) and my admission of non-originality.[i],[ii]<br> <br>



Myth #1 Health Care Costs are Soaring<br>
<br>
No, they are not.  The amount we spend on health care has indeed risen, in absolute terms, after inflation, and as a percentage of our incomes and GDP.  That does not mean costs are soaring.<br>
<br>
You cannot judge the &ldquo;cost&rdquo; of something by simply what you spend.  You must also judge what you get.  I&rsquo;m reasonably certain the cost of 1950&rsquo;s level health care has dropped in real terms over the last 60 years (and you can probably have a barber from the year 1500 bleed you for almost nothing nowadays).  Of course, with 1950&rsquo;s health care, lots of things will kill you that 2009 health care would prevent.  Also, your quality of life, in many instances, would be far worse, but you will have a little bit more change in your pocket as the price will be lower.  Want to take the deal?  In fact, nobody in the US really wants 1950&rsquo;s health care (or even 1990&rsquo;s health care).  They just want to pay 1950 prices for 2009 health care.  They want the latest pills, techniques, therapies, general genius discoveries, and highly skilled labor that would make today&rsquo;s health care seem like science fiction a few years ago.  But alas, successful science fiction is expensive.<br>
<br>
In the case of health care, the fact that we spend so much more on it now is largely a positive.  The negative part is if some, or a lot, of that spending is wasteful.  Of course, that is mostly the government&rsquo;s fault and is not what advocates of government control want you to focus upon.  We spend so much more on health care, even relative to other advances, mostly because it is worth so much more to us.  Similarly, we spend so much more on computers, compact discs, HDTV, and those wonderful one shot espresso makers that make it like having a barista in your own home.  Interestingly, we also spend a ton more on these other items now than we did in 1950 because none of these existed in 1950 (well, you could have hired a skilled Italian man to live with you and make you coffee t</htmltext>
<tokenext>Health Care Mythology 7/22/2009 Clifford S. Asness , Ph.D . What We Know That Ain    t So Will Rogers [ 1 ] famously said ,    It is n't what we do n't know that gives us trouble , it 's what we know that ai n't so.    So it is with the health care debate in this country .
Quite a few    facts    offered to the public as truth are simply wrong and often intentionally misleading .
It seems clear that no truly productive solution will emerge when these false facts represent our common starting point .
So , this essay takes on the modest task of simply disabusing its readers of some untrue notions about health care .
I do not take on the harder task of prescribing how we should ( and if we should ) reform health care , though I offer a few thoughts .
Important work must be done here by those who understand , far better than I , the details of health care provision .
However , no details are necessary for this essay , and no animals ( though perhaps some egos ) were harmed in its creation .
The fallacies I present are basic and it takes only a rational economic framework to expose them There are large groups of people in this country who want socialized medicine and they sense that the stars are aligning , and now is their time to succeed .
They rarely call it socialized medicine , but instead    single payer health care    or    universal coverage    or something that their public relations people have told them sounds better .
Whatever they call it , they believe ( or pretend to believe ) a lot of wrongheaded things , and they must be stopped .
Step one is understanding how and why they are wrong .
Step two is kicking their asses back to Cuba where they can get in line with Michael Moore for their free gastric bypasses .
Finally , please read my standard disclosure ( though it    s more designed for something that might be construed as financial advice , it can    t hurt ) and my admission of non-originality .
[ i ] , [ ii ] Myth # 1 Health Care Costs are Soaring No , they are not .
The amount we spend on health care has indeed risen , in absolute terms , after inflation , and as a percentage of our incomes and GDP .
That does not mean costs are soaring .
You can not judge the    cost    of something by simply what you spend .
You must also judge what you get .
I    m reasonably certain the cost of 1950    s level health care has dropped in real terms over the last 60 years ( and you can probably have a barber from the year 1500 bleed you for almost nothing nowadays ) .
Of course , with 1950    s health care , lots of things will kill you that 2009 health care would prevent .
Also , your quality of life , in many instances , would be far worse , but you will have a little bit more change in your pocket as the price will be lower .
Want to take the deal ?
In fact , nobody in the US really wants 1950    s health care ( or even 1990    s health care ) .
They just want to pay 1950 prices for 2009 health care .
They want the latest pills , techniques , therapies , general genius discoveries , and highly skilled labor that would make today    s health care seem like science fiction a few years ago .
But alas , successful science fiction is expensive .
In the case of health care , the fact that we spend so much more on it now is largely a positive .
The negative part is if some , or a lot , of that spending is wasteful .
Of course , that is mostly the government    s fault and is not what advocates of government control want you to focus upon .
We spend so much more on health care , even relative to other advances , mostly because it is worth so much more to us .
Similarly , we spend so much more on computers , compact discs , HDTV , and those wonderful one shot espresso makers that make it like having a barista in your own home .
Interestingly , we also spend a ton more on these other items now than we did in 1950 because none of these existed in 1950 ( well , you could have hired a skilled Italian man to live with you and make you coffee t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Health Care Mythology
7/22/2009

Clifford S. Asness, Ph.D.

What We Know That Ain’t So

 

Will Rogers[1] famously said, “It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so.”  So it is with the health care debate in this country.
Quite a few “facts” offered to the public as truth are simply wrong and often intentionally misleading.
It seems clear that no truly productive solution will emerge when these false facts represent our common starting point.
So, this essay takes on the modest task of simply disabusing its readers of some untrue notions about health care.
I do not take on the harder task of prescribing how we should (and if we should) reform health care, though I offer a few thoughts.
Important work must be done here by those who understand, far better than I, the details of health care provision.
However, no details are necessary for this essay, and no animals (though perhaps some egos) were harmed in its creation.
The fallacies I present are basic and it takes only a rational economic framework to expose them

There are large groups of people in this country who want socialized medicine and they sense that the stars are aligning, and now is their time to succeed.
They rarely call it socialized medicine, but instead “single payer health care” or “universal coverage” or something that their public relations people have told them sounds better.
Whatever they call it, they believe (or pretend to believe) a lot of wrongheaded things, and they must be stopped.
Step one is understanding how and why they are wrong.
Step two is kicking their asses back to Cuba where they can get in line with Michael Moore for their free gastric bypasses.
Finally, please read my standard disclosure (though it’s more designed for something that might be construed as financial advice, it can’t hurt) and my admission of non-originality.
[i],[ii] 



Myth #1 Health Care Costs are Soaring

No, they are not.
The amount we spend on health care has indeed risen, in absolute terms, after inflation, and as a percentage of our incomes and GDP.
That does not mean costs are soaring.
You cannot judge the “cost” of something by simply what you spend.
You must also judge what you get.
I’m reasonably certain the cost of 1950’s level health care has dropped in real terms over the last 60 years (and you can probably have a barber from the year 1500 bleed you for almost nothing nowadays).
Of course, with 1950’s health care, lots of things will kill you that 2009 health care would prevent.
Also, your quality of life, in many instances, would be far worse, but you will have a little bit more change in your pocket as the price will be lower.
Want to take the deal?
In fact, nobody in the US really wants 1950’s health care (or even 1990’s health care).
They just want to pay 1950 prices for 2009 health care.
They want the latest pills, techniques, therapies, general genius discoveries, and highly skilled labor that would make today’s health care seem like science fiction a few years ago.
But alas, successful science fiction is expensive.
In the case of health care, the fact that we spend so much more on it now is largely a positive.
The negative part is if some, or a lot, of that spending is wasteful.
Of course, that is mostly the government’s fault and is not what advocates of government control want you to focus upon.
We spend so much more on health care, even relative to other advances, mostly because it is worth so much more to us.
Similarly, we spend so much more on computers, compact discs, HDTV, and those wonderful one shot espresso makers that make it like having a barista in your own home.
Interestingly, we also spend a ton more on these other items now than we did in 1950 because none of these existed in 1950 (well, you could have hired a skilled Italian man to live with you and make you coffee t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022072</id>
	<title>Who's providing coverage for 96\% of Americans?</title>
	<author>pkbarbiedoll</author>
	<datestamp>1257698040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the words of an infamous congressman:   you LIE.

</p><p>The bill provides mandated coverage for the health insurance industry - only a small handful of people will quality for the reduced "public option" plan.  If you freelance, or are self employed, or otherwise fall above the cutoff -- you are required to buy full priced health insurance from a private firm.

</p><p>This is NOT the change I voted for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the words of an infamous congressman : you LIE .
The bill provides mandated coverage for the health insurance industry - only a small handful of people will quality for the reduced " public option " plan .
If you freelance , or are self employed , or otherwise fall above the cutoff -- you are required to buy full priced health insurance from a private firm .
This is NOT the change I voted for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the words of an infamous congressman:   you LIE.
The bill provides mandated coverage for the health insurance industry - only a small handful of people will quality for the reduced "public option" plan.
If you freelance, or are self employed, or otherwise fall above the cutoff -- you are required to buy full priced health insurance from a private firm.
This is NOT the change I voted for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021378</id>
	<title>Congratulations America...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257693360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You just set fire to your own Constitution.</p><p>Congress can now assign itself any rights it wishes. Get ready for anything that might affect the health of the population to be regulated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You just set fire to your own Constitution.Congress can now assign itself any rights it wishes .
Get ready for anything that might affect the health of the population to be regulated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You just set fire to your own Constitution.Congress can now assign itself any rights it wishes.
Get ready for anything that might affect the health of the population to be regulated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026992</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257687120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People please realize that politics in America is corrupt.  Read Animal Farm that explains our government at work.</p><p>Politics - Poly means many and tics are blood sucking insects.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People please realize that politics in America is corrupt .
Read Animal Farm that explains our government at work.Politics - Poly means many and tics are blood sucking insects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People please realize that politics in America is corrupt.
Read Animal Farm that explains our government at work.Politics - Poly means many and tics are blood sucking insects.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30030684</id>
	<title>Why is the above not moderated as what it is?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1257766380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Racist drivel.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Racist drivel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Racist drivel.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021820</id>
	<title>Re:An improvement, but not as good as it could be.</title>
	<author>atriusofbricia</author>
	<datestamp>1257696240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am sure this bill will certainly help many of those who cannot afford insurance and will now recieve it. However that does not mean i think it is the perfect bill, however we will be better off with it. It does not regulate insurance companies enough, included in the bill should have been a CEO pay cap, to open p the finances of private companies to be audited and requiring them to reduce their overhead, eliminate advertising budgets, and use all of the money for providing health insurance coverage and capped salaries to their employees. Only then can we be certain that money being paid into these companies is not going to some fat cat CEO while the companies deny claims for life saving treatments as they do now. Private insurance today is pretty scammy and worthless, you often have to fight with the companies to get things covered. Hopefully the bill does set a basic coverage standard which covers everything essential. I have also always been a little skeptical of ideas of linking insurance to employment unless the insurance can continue seemlessly after employment or persons are transferred instantly to a government plan. The Public Option even in this bill is too weak and should have been set according to medicare's cost alignment rather than an average of private insurance. It is unclear whether it will survive the senate. Without the public option I would be concerned that the private companies will ruthlessly jack up rates and massively exploit the people, which could be controlled by the pay caps i mentioned above however and perhaps setting some price control or requiring that as i said the money be spent on actually providing health care. Better yet still would have been single payer, which ironically would be the most efficient, would have saved enough money considering that private insurance is 30\% inefficient while medicare is 4\% to provide insurance to everyone without spending any more money than we do now. That would save the lives of 40,000 children who die annually so some capitalist pig CEO can get rich. The single payer in progressive plans would be the least beauracratic, you would not have insurance company beauracrats deciding what health care you can get or deciding to deny stuff to help improve the profit margin. The single payer would gaurantee coverage of essential care, and not deny things to improve profit margins.</p><p>As far as rationing, the single payer and this bill both fight rationing. To be honest,  any system contains rationing. However, it is important to make sure that highest urgency  treatment is giving first priority, regardless of the patients income. Our current system rations in the worst possible way, according to ability to pay. It is genocidal to the poor since it guarantees health care to the rich and denies it to the poor. I don't want to hear this idea that people who make money contribute more. that is a lie. Try telling that to the overworked factory slave laborer or field worker who harvests the food you eat who works out in the hot sun all day making $5 an hour. It is usually the case that the hardest working people who do the most essential thing, bringing food to your table, make the least.</p></div><p>I'l be honest and say I didn't read your entire rambling comment. It became clear very quickly that it was a socialist screed and wasn't worth reading all of. Though, it is worth responding to for the benefit of others. And with that aim in mind, could you perhaps explain who is to pay for all this socialist fun and joy? And if you're going to make a claim that a government program is only 4\% inefficient, doubly so to make that claim about medicare, you really need to back it up with some thing.</p><p>I'm not going to point for point rebut this silliness. Suffice to say to everyone else, if you want to know the socialist mind, read the proceeding comment. You may notice that it is full of holes and assumptions, and very light on facts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am sure this bill will certainly help many of those who can not afford insurance and will now recieve it .
However that does not mean i think it is the perfect bill , however we will be better off with it .
It does not regulate insurance companies enough , included in the bill should have been a CEO pay cap , to open p the finances of private companies to be audited and requiring them to reduce their overhead , eliminate advertising budgets , and use all of the money for providing health insurance coverage and capped salaries to their employees .
Only then can we be certain that money being paid into these companies is not going to some fat cat CEO while the companies deny claims for life saving treatments as they do now .
Private insurance today is pretty scammy and worthless , you often have to fight with the companies to get things covered .
Hopefully the bill does set a basic coverage standard which covers everything essential .
I have also always been a little skeptical of ideas of linking insurance to employment unless the insurance can continue seemlessly after employment or persons are transferred instantly to a government plan .
The Public Option even in this bill is too weak and should have been set according to medicare 's cost alignment rather than an average of private insurance .
It is unclear whether it will survive the senate .
Without the public option I would be concerned that the private companies will ruthlessly jack up rates and massively exploit the people , which could be controlled by the pay caps i mentioned above however and perhaps setting some price control or requiring that as i said the money be spent on actually providing health care .
Better yet still would have been single payer , which ironically would be the most efficient , would have saved enough money considering that private insurance is 30 \ % inefficient while medicare is 4 \ % to provide insurance to everyone without spending any more money than we do now .
That would save the lives of 40,000 children who die annually so some capitalist pig CEO can get rich .
The single payer in progressive plans would be the least beauracratic , you would not have insurance company beauracrats deciding what health care you can get or deciding to deny stuff to help improve the profit margin .
The single payer would gaurantee coverage of essential care , and not deny things to improve profit margins.As far as rationing , the single payer and this bill both fight rationing .
To be honest , any system contains rationing .
However , it is important to make sure that highest urgency treatment is giving first priority , regardless of the patients income .
Our current system rations in the worst possible way , according to ability to pay .
It is genocidal to the poor since it guarantees health care to the rich and denies it to the poor .
I do n't want to hear this idea that people who make money contribute more .
that is a lie .
Try telling that to the overworked factory slave laborer or field worker who harvests the food you eat who works out in the hot sun all day making $ 5 an hour .
It is usually the case that the hardest working people who do the most essential thing , bringing food to your table , make the least.I'l be honest and say I did n't read your entire rambling comment .
It became clear very quickly that it was a socialist screed and was n't worth reading all of .
Though , it is worth responding to for the benefit of others .
And with that aim in mind , could you perhaps explain who is to pay for all this socialist fun and joy ?
And if you 're going to make a claim that a government program is only 4 \ % inefficient , doubly so to make that claim about medicare , you really need to back it up with some thing.I 'm not going to point for point rebut this silliness .
Suffice to say to everyone else , if you want to know the socialist mind , read the proceeding comment .
You may notice that it is full of holes and assumptions , and very light on facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am sure this bill will certainly help many of those who cannot afford insurance and will now recieve it.
However that does not mean i think it is the perfect bill, however we will be better off with it.
It does not regulate insurance companies enough, included in the bill should have been a CEO pay cap, to open p the finances of private companies to be audited and requiring them to reduce their overhead, eliminate advertising budgets, and use all of the money for providing health insurance coverage and capped salaries to their employees.
Only then can we be certain that money being paid into these companies is not going to some fat cat CEO while the companies deny claims for life saving treatments as they do now.
Private insurance today is pretty scammy and worthless, you often have to fight with the companies to get things covered.
Hopefully the bill does set a basic coverage standard which covers everything essential.
I have also always been a little skeptical of ideas of linking insurance to employment unless the insurance can continue seemlessly after employment or persons are transferred instantly to a government plan.
The Public Option even in this bill is too weak and should have been set according to medicare's cost alignment rather than an average of private insurance.
It is unclear whether it will survive the senate.
Without the public option I would be concerned that the private companies will ruthlessly jack up rates and massively exploit the people, which could be controlled by the pay caps i mentioned above however and perhaps setting some price control or requiring that as i said the money be spent on actually providing health care.
Better yet still would have been single payer, which ironically would be the most efficient, would have saved enough money considering that private insurance is 30\% inefficient while medicare is 4\% to provide insurance to everyone without spending any more money than we do now.
That would save the lives of 40,000 children who die annually so some capitalist pig CEO can get rich.
The single payer in progressive plans would be the least beauracratic, you would not have insurance company beauracrats deciding what health care you can get or deciding to deny stuff to help improve the profit margin.
The single payer would gaurantee coverage of essential care, and not deny things to improve profit margins.As far as rationing, the single payer and this bill both fight rationing.
To be honest,  any system contains rationing.
However, it is important to make sure that highest urgency  treatment is giving first priority, regardless of the patients income.
Our current system rations in the worst possible way, according to ability to pay.
It is genocidal to the poor since it guarantees health care to the rich and denies it to the poor.
I don't want to hear this idea that people who make money contribute more.
that is a lie.
Try telling that to the overworked factory slave laborer or field worker who harvests the food you eat who works out in the hot sun all day making $5 an hour.
It is usually the case that the hardest working people who do the most essential thing, bringing food to your table, make the least.I'l be honest and say I didn't read your entire rambling comment.
It became clear very quickly that it was a socialist screed and wasn't worth reading all of.
Though, it is worth responding to for the benefit of others.
And with that aim in mind, could you perhaps explain who is to pay for all this socialist fun and joy?
And if you're going to make a claim that a government program is only 4\% inefficient, doubly so to make that claim about medicare, you really need to back it up with some thing.I'm not going to point for point rebut this silliness.
Suffice to say to everyone else, if you want to know the socialist mind, read the proceeding comment.
You may notice that it is full of holes and assumptions, and very light on facts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020842</id>
	<title>Free Stuff!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257688860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022778</id>
	<title>Elective Abortions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257702240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any abortion except in the case where the mother has to chose their life or the baby's is an elective procedure and as such is not a health issue.</p><p>If the government wants to pay for non-health related (aka elective) surgeries then they should cover boob jobs as well.</p><p>If people want to cut up their perfectly healthy bodies in an unsafe manner because the government won't pay for it then that's their own stupidity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any abortion except in the case where the mother has to chose their life or the baby 's is an elective procedure and as such is not a health issue.If the government wants to pay for non-health related ( aka elective ) surgeries then they should cover boob jobs as well.If people want to cut up their perfectly healthy bodies in an unsafe manner because the government wo n't pay for it then that 's their own stupidity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any abortion except in the case where the mother has to chose their life or the baby's is an elective procedure and as such is not a health issue.If the government wants to pay for non-health related (aka elective) surgeries then they should cover boob jobs as well.If people want to cut up their perfectly healthy bodies in an unsafe manner because the government won't pay for it then that's their own stupidity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024156</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1257711420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait, did we actually the cars people traded in?  I assumed they were being resold, just like any other used cars (which of course would somewhat defeat the purpose of the gas milage requirement, since you're not taking high-milage cars off the streets, just shuffling them around to people who can't afford new cars).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait , did we actually the cars people traded in ?
I assumed they were being resold , just like any other used cars ( which of course would somewhat defeat the purpose of the gas milage requirement , since you 're not taking high-milage cars off the streets , just shuffling them around to people who ca n't afford new cars ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait, did we actually the cars people traded in?
I assumed they were being resold, just like any other used cars (which of course would somewhat defeat the purpose of the gas milage requirement, since you're not taking high-milage cars off the streets, just shuffling them around to people who can't afford new cars).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021360</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>ScentCone</author>
	<datestamp>1257693120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!! </i>
<br> <br>
Which, as you surely know, is complete fiction.
<br> <br>
The cash for clunkers program gave certain people a discount off of a new car (most of which were made by foreign companies, as it turns out), and cost the future taxpayers (who will have to pay for it, with interest to the Chinese) roughly $20,000 <i>per car</i> to administer. All of that (including the junking of thousands of useful vehicles that could have gone to people who <i>cannot afford to buy brand new car, even with a discount</i>, and for a very spikey, extremely temporary boost in sales that was more than made up for weeks later by the complete collapse of the same. It was an expensive, wasteful, absurd stunt that achieved nothing except to force a bunch of lower-middle-class tax payers who can't afford to buy new cars hand some fresh debt to their children so that <i>other</i> people could get a fake discount on a nice new vehicle.
<br> <br>
Jobs were not saved or created. Money was not saved. The environment wasn't impacted in any meaningful way. All we have is the normalization of more government involvement in dealings between people who make something, and the people who buy it. All at the expense of everyone's grandchildren. No, they can't get anything right. And you know it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years , and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS ! !
Which , as you surely know , is complete fiction .
The cash for clunkers program gave certain people a discount off of a new car ( most of which were made by foreign companies , as it turns out ) , and cost the future taxpayers ( who will have to pay for it , with interest to the Chinese ) roughly $ 20,000 per car to administer .
All of that ( including the junking of thousands of useful vehicles that could have gone to people who can not afford to buy brand new car , even with a discount , and for a very spikey , extremely temporary boost in sales that was more than made up for weeks later by the complete collapse of the same .
It was an expensive , wasteful , absurd stunt that achieved nothing except to force a bunch of lower-middle-class tax payers who ca n't afford to buy new cars hand some fresh debt to their children so that other people could get a fake discount on a nice new vehicle .
Jobs were not saved or created .
Money was not saved .
The environment was n't impacted in any meaningful way .
All we have is the normalization of more government involvement in dealings between people who make something , and the people who buy it .
All at the expense of everyone 's grandchildren .
No , they ca n't get anything right .
And you know it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's like when the government promises to create 2 million jobs in 3 years, and then those jobs are CREATED IN TWO MONTHS!!
Which, as you surely know, is complete fiction.
The cash for clunkers program gave certain people a discount off of a new car (most of which were made by foreign companies, as it turns out), and cost the future taxpayers (who will have to pay for it, with interest to the Chinese) roughly $20,000 per car to administer.
All of that (including the junking of thousands of useful vehicles that could have gone to people who cannot afford to buy brand new car, even with a discount, and for a very spikey, extremely temporary boost in sales that was more than made up for weeks later by the complete collapse of the same.
It was an expensive, wasteful, absurd stunt that achieved nothing except to force a bunch of lower-middle-class tax payers who can't afford to buy new cars hand some fresh debt to their children so that other people could get a fake discount on a nice new vehicle.
Jobs were not saved or created.
Money was not saved.
The environment wasn't impacted in any meaningful way.
All we have is the normalization of more government involvement in dealings between people who make something, and the people who buy it.
All at the expense of everyone's grandchildren.
No, they can't get anything right.
And you know it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958</id>
	<title>Oh sweet</title>
	<author>JimboFBX</author>
	<datestamp>1257690240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>So surely this bill, which makes it illegal to charge more for being a woman, also makes it illegal to charge more for being a man with car insurance and life insurance. Right? I mean, god forbid the democrats come up with a good idea and poorly execute it or create unfair exceptions that favor special interest groups that voted them in like they always do. So who read more than 100 of the 1,990 pages of this thing before voting? How do you even summarize something so simply in a matter of a few paragraphs, then someone manage to bloat that to 1,990 pages? Obviously there is a LOT more to this bill than what has hit the press releases.<br> <br>

Well, countdown until this article gets over a 1,000 comments and only the top few become the ones actually read...</htmltext>
<tokenext>So surely this bill , which makes it illegal to charge more for being a woman , also makes it illegal to charge more for being a man with car insurance and life insurance .
Right ? I mean , god forbid the democrats come up with a good idea and poorly execute it or create unfair exceptions that favor special interest groups that voted them in like they always do .
So who read more than 100 of the 1,990 pages of this thing before voting ?
How do you even summarize something so simply in a matter of a few paragraphs , then someone manage to bloat that to 1,990 pages ?
Obviously there is a LOT more to this bill than what has hit the press releases .
Well , countdown until this article gets over a 1,000 comments and only the top few become the ones actually read.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So surely this bill, which makes it illegal to charge more for being a woman, also makes it illegal to charge more for being a man with car insurance and life insurance.
Right? I mean, god forbid the democrats come up with a good idea and poorly execute it or create unfair exceptions that favor special interest groups that voted them in like they always do.
So who read more than 100 of the 1,990 pages of this thing before voting?
How do you even summarize something so simply in a matter of a few paragraphs, then someone manage to bloat that to 1,990 pages?
Obviously there is a LOT more to this bill than what has hit the press releases.
Well, countdown until this article gets over a 1,000 comments and only the top few become the ones actually read...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021110</id>
	<title>A progressive measure.</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1257691680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I applaud this move heartily and am glad to see America finally catch up with the rest of the developed, Western world.  Forcing citizens to enter patronize particular corporate entities IS the way forward, and I'm glad Obama and the House can see that.  Once the citizen realizes he has to give up a large portion of his ability to make selfish INDIVIDUAL choices and act in accordance with that of the leaders of his or her nations, can they develop into a more moral, self-actualized human being.  I think this is also an indication that there is a shift towards America having less of this "me, me, me!" attitude and the country is starting to realize that freedom isn't individual greed, but something greater than they are--sacrifice and adherence to ones' governing body.  A more moral human being is one that follows the edicts of the body that rules it.  A good dog, after all, is not one that jumps the fence and goes where it pleases but one that runs to its master with leash in its mouth, wagging its tail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I applaud this move heartily and am glad to see America finally catch up with the rest of the developed , Western world .
Forcing citizens to enter patronize particular corporate entities IS the way forward , and I 'm glad Obama and the House can see that .
Once the citizen realizes he has to give up a large portion of his ability to make selfish INDIVIDUAL choices and act in accordance with that of the leaders of his or her nations , can they develop into a more moral , self-actualized human being .
I think this is also an indication that there is a shift towards America having less of this " me , me , me !
" attitude and the country is starting to realize that freedom is n't individual greed , but something greater than they are--sacrifice and adherence to ones ' governing body .
A more moral human being is one that follows the edicts of the body that rules it .
A good dog , after all , is not one that jumps the fence and goes where it pleases but one that runs to its master with leash in its mouth , wagging its tail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I applaud this move heartily and am glad to see America finally catch up with the rest of the developed, Western world.
Forcing citizens to enter patronize particular corporate entities IS the way forward, and I'm glad Obama and the House can see that.
Once the citizen realizes he has to give up a large portion of his ability to make selfish INDIVIDUAL choices and act in accordance with that of the leaders of his or her nations, can they develop into a more moral, self-actualized human being.
I think this is also an indication that there is a shift towards America having less of this "me, me, me!
" attitude and the country is starting to realize that freedom isn't individual greed, but something greater than they are--sacrifice and adherence to ones' governing body.
A more moral human being is one that follows the edicts of the body that rules it.
A good dog, after all, is not one that jumps the fence and goes where it pleases but one that runs to its master with leash in its mouth, wagging its tail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023334</id>
	<title>11th province of Canada</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257705480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the US gov't becoming more involved in health care, the US is becoming more like a 11th province of Canada.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the US gov't becoming more involved in health care , the US is becoming more like a 11th province of Canada .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the US gov't becoming more involved in health care, the US is becoming more like a 11th province of Canada.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026880</id>
	<title>Re:Seriously, would you people shut the fuck up?</title>
	<author>Gerafix</author>
	<datestamp>1257686520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exactly! The Republicans might be evil bastards but the Democrats don't have any fucking balls.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
The Republicans might be evil bastards but the Democrats do n't have any fucking balls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
The Republicans might be evil bastards but the Democrats don't have any fucking balls.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022710</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029360</id>
	<title>Re:This is how freedom dies</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257708300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which freedom died? The freedom of being uninsured? Yeah, makes me about as sad as when the freedom of being a slave died (actually some slaves did get sad over it, because their living conditions wouldn't improve as a result, but that's a different debate).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which freedom died ?
The freedom of being uninsured ?
Yeah , makes me about as sad as when the freedom of being a slave died ( actually some slaves did get sad over it , because their living conditions would n't improve as a result , but that 's a different debate ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which freedom died?
The freedom of being uninsured?
Yeah, makes me about as sad as when the freedom of being a slave died (actually some slaves did get sad over it, because their living conditions wouldn't improve as a result, but that's a different debate).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021010</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</id>
	<title>Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Coolhand2120</author>
	<datestamp>1257692700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?  On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition.  We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance ?
On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition .
We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?
On this basis alone this bill should never have come to fruition.
We have this thing call enumerated powers in our Constitution and nowhere does it say the government can compel anyone to buy health insurance just because they are alive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021134</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>CfC failed because we borrowed money from the Chinese to pay to destroy cars that could have been fixed, donated to charity, sold for parts, whatever.  No, instead we pissed away all that money instead.<br> <br>

As to the jobs... please, show me those stats.  I've yet to see anything that proves those numbers.  And please keep in mind that it is impossible to track "jobs saved" because there is no way to tell if jobs were saved or not.</htmltext>
<tokenext>CfC failed because we borrowed money from the Chinese to pay to destroy cars that could have been fixed , donated to charity , sold for parts , whatever .
No , instead we pissed away all that money instead .
As to the jobs... please , show me those stats .
I 've yet to see anything that proves those numbers .
And please keep in mind that it is impossible to track " jobs saved " because there is no way to tell if jobs were saved or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>CfC failed because we borrowed money from the Chinese to pay to destroy cars that could have been fixed, donated to charity, sold for parts, whatever.
No, instead we pissed away all that money instead.
As to the jobs... please, show me those stats.
I've yet to see anything that proves those numbers.
And please keep in mind that it is impossible to track "jobs saved" because there is no way to tell if jobs were saved or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022942</id>
	<title>Re:Congratulations America...</title>
	<author>justinlee37</author>
	<datestamp>1257703020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Things that affect our health are ALREADY regulated, like the ban on stem cell research. Personally I think this regulation is a good thing -- private insurance companies will fuck you in the ass for an extra dollar. That's capitalism for you. They need to be reined in.</p><p>I don't mind getting fucked in the ass for an extra dollar when we're talking about buying espresso machines or iphones, but this is our HEALTH we are discussing here. I do not want my health to be fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Things that affect our health are ALREADY regulated , like the ban on stem cell research .
Personally I think this regulation is a good thing -- private insurance companies will fuck you in the ass for an extra dollar .
That 's capitalism for you .
They need to be reined in.I do n't mind getting fucked in the ass for an extra dollar when we 're talking about buying espresso machines or iphones , but this is our HEALTH we are discussing here .
I do not want my health to be fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Things that affect our health are ALREADY regulated, like the ban on stem cell research.
Personally I think this regulation is a good thing -- private insurance companies will fuck you in the ass for an extra dollar.
That's capitalism for you.
They need to be reined in.I don't mind getting fucked in the ass for an extra dollar when we're talking about buying espresso machines or iphones, but this is our HEALTH we are discussing here.
I do not want my health to be fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021378</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021130</id>
	<title>Re:Overheads</title>
	<author>zevans</author>
	<datestamp>1257691920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Na, you're not even trying. In the UK 1,990 pages is one ITT for one bunch of desktop PCs in one surgery. I hope I never see what the procurement documents for an MRI scanner look like, although there is a risk to health there: they might collapse under their own weight into a singularity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Na , you 're not even trying .
In the UK 1,990 pages is one ITT for one bunch of desktop PCs in one surgery .
I hope I never see what the procurement documents for an MRI scanner look like , although there is a risk to health there : they might collapse under their own weight into a singularity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Na, you're not even trying.
In the UK 1,990 pages is one ITT for one bunch of desktop PCs in one surgery.
I hope I never see what the procurement documents for an MRI scanner look like, although there is a risk to health there: they might collapse under their own weight into a singularity.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023340</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>limaxray</author>
	<datestamp>1257705540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are 100\% correct, but unfortunately we've pissed on the constitution long ago to give the federal government unchecked power.  The commerce clause has been so thoroughly exploited over the years that there is just about nothing the feds can't do.  Just look at the war on drugs as one fine example of out-of-control government with no regard for the constitution.  Remember how the constitution had to be amended to prohibit alcohol?  Not anymore, that's just an antiquated inconvenience.  The worst part is that most Americans think (and are perfectly OK with) that the feds can do whatever they want and no longer question their abuse of power.<br> <br>Personally, I don't see how this bill is anything but a boon for insurers.  What people fail to realize is that many Americans, especially the young and healthy, don't WANT health insurance.  I know I don't.  But I soon may be forced by the government to buy a product I don't want.  Yeah, you can make the insurance companies take on those with preexisting conditions, but they'll just use it as a reason to jack up rates for everyone else.  But yeah, if you're gonna fix healthcare, fix HEALTHCARE, don't just force everyone to buy products from those who are lining your pockets.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are 100 \ % correct , but unfortunately we 've pissed on the constitution long ago to give the federal government unchecked power .
The commerce clause has been so thoroughly exploited over the years that there is just about nothing the feds ca n't do .
Just look at the war on drugs as one fine example of out-of-control government with no regard for the constitution .
Remember how the constitution had to be amended to prohibit alcohol ?
Not anymore , that 's just an antiquated inconvenience .
The worst part is that most Americans think ( and are perfectly OK with ) that the feds can do whatever they want and no longer question their abuse of power .
Personally , I do n't see how this bill is anything but a boon for insurers .
What people fail to realize is that many Americans , especially the young and healthy , do n't WANT health insurance .
I know I do n't .
But I soon may be forced by the government to buy a product I do n't want .
Yeah , you can make the insurance companies take on those with preexisting conditions , but they 'll just use it as a reason to jack up rates for everyone else .
But yeah , if you 're gon na fix healthcare , fix HEALTHCARE , do n't just force everyone to buy products from those who are lining your pockets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are 100\% correct, but unfortunately we've pissed on the constitution long ago to give the federal government unchecked power.
The commerce clause has been so thoroughly exploited over the years that there is just about nothing the feds can't do.
Just look at the war on drugs as one fine example of out-of-control government with no regard for the constitution.
Remember how the constitution had to be amended to prohibit alcohol?
Not anymore, that's just an antiquated inconvenience.
The worst part is that most Americans think (and are perfectly OK with) that the feds can do whatever they want and no longer question their abuse of power.
Personally, I don't see how this bill is anything but a boon for insurers.
What people fail to realize is that many Americans, especially the young and healthy, don't WANT health insurance.
I know I don't.
But I soon may be forced by the government to buy a product I don't want.
Yeah, you can make the insurance companies take on those with preexisting conditions, but they'll just use it as a reason to jack up rates for everyone else.
But yeah, if you're gonna fix healthcare, fix HEALTHCARE, don't just force everyone to buy products from those who are lining your pockets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028316</id>
	<title>Re:Unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Slur</author>
	<datestamp>1257697440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?</p></div><p>The Constitution doesn't lay out everything permissible in minute detail. It simply lays the ground rules, and gives the framework for the process. Somewhere in there it explicitly states that anything not specifically forbidden is left to our discretion. In other words, we are free to choose this path.</p><p>Section 8, Powers of Congress, begins:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The Congress shall have Power To<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... provide for the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... general Welfare of the United States....</p></div><p>It could be said that for our own benefit some of our pre or post-tax allocations must go towards insurance against conditions that undermine the welfare of the people, who after all are the raison-d'etre for the government to exist.</p><p>A healthy person is more capable of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness than one who suffers from a disease, and therefore it is in our collective interest that a universally-accessible system be in place to ensure our health.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance ? The Constitution does n't lay out everything permissible in minute detail .
It simply lays the ground rules , and gives the framework for the process .
Somewhere in there it explicitly states that anything not specifically forbidden is left to our discretion .
In other words , we are free to choose this path.Section 8 , Powers of Congress , begins : The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States....It could be said that for our own benefit some of our pre or post-tax allocations must go towards insurance against conditions that undermine the welfare of the people , who after all are the raison-d'etre for the government to exist.A healthy person is more capable of pursuing life , liberty , and happiness than one who suffers from a disease , and therefore it is in our collective interest that a universally-accessible system be in place to ensure our health .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone show me where in the U.S. Constitution it says the government can force you to buy health insurance?The Constitution doesn't lay out everything permissible in minute detail.
It simply lays the ground rules, and gives the framework for the process.
Somewhere in there it explicitly states that anything not specifically forbidden is left to our discretion.
In other words, we are free to choose this path.Section 8, Powers of Congress, begins:The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare of the United States....It could be said that for our own benefit some of our pre or post-tax allocations must go towards insurance against conditions that undermine the welfare of the people, who after all are the raison-d'etre for the government to exist.A healthy person is more capable of pursuing life, liberty, and happiness than one who suffers from a disease, and therefore it is in our collective interest that a universally-accessible system be in place to ensure our health.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022418</id>
	<title>It worked?</title>
	<author>iwaybandit</author>
	<datestamp>1257700260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If your definition of worked includes selling lots of 12 MPG <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/ap-cash-for-clunkers--cash-for-big-new-pickups/1" title="usatoday.com" rel="nofollow">pickup trucks</a> [usatoday.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>If your definition of worked includes selling lots of 12 MPG pickup trucks [ usatoday.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your definition of worked includes selling lots of 12 MPG pickup trucks [usatoday.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024174</id>
	<title>Re:Oh sweet</title>
	<author>WrongMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257711540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering its a health insurance bill and not a car insurance bill or a life insurance bill, then no it doesn't and it shouldn't address your unrelated concerns.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering its a health insurance bill and not a car insurance bill or a life insurance bill , then no it does n't and it should n't address your unrelated concerns .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering its a health insurance bill and not a car insurance bill or a life insurance bill, then no it doesn't and it shouldn't address your unrelated concerns.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021168</id>
	<title>Re:Oh sweet</title>
	<author>millennial</author>
	<datestamp>1257692040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your entire argument is in doubt based on the fact that you have no idea how long the bill is. <a href="http://photos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs034.snc3/12140\_567988834180\_51901303\_33241848\_2330083\_n.jpg" title="fbcdn.net" rel="nofollow">It is actually less than 600 pages long</a> [fbcdn.net]. I can only assume you've just been accepting what you've been told about it and have never looked at it yourself.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your entire argument is in doubt based on the fact that you have no idea how long the bill is .
It is actually less than 600 pages long [ fbcdn.net ] .
I can only assume you 've just been accepting what you 've been told about it and have never looked at it yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your entire argument is in doubt based on the fact that you have no idea how long the bill is.
It is actually less than 600 pages long [fbcdn.net].
I can only assume you've just been accepting what you've been told about it and have never looked at it yourself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021014</id>
	<title>The 4\% are the "uncooperative" ones</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257690720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 4\% are the "uncooperative" ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 4 \ % are the " uncooperative " ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 4\% are the "uncooperative" ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021230</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257692400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, I know it's a technicality, but most of those jobs created in TWO MONTHS were gone after TWO WEEKS.  But at least they can say they were "created."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , I know it 's a technicality , but most of those jobs created in TWO MONTHS were gone after TWO WEEKS .
But at least they can say they were " created .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, I know it's a technicality, but most of those jobs created in TWO MONTHS were gone after TWO WEEKS.
But at least they can say they were "created.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021310</id>
	<title>Re:Oh sweet</title>
	<author>AA Wulf</author>
	<datestamp>1257692820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Regardless of how long the bill is, it isn't a matter of "who read more than 100 of the 1990 pages of this thing before voting?"  The bill itself, like any other bill in Washington, amends language to other existing bills and creates new language to be added.  Since this is a comprehensive bill, it is altering language in hundreds of bills to do essentially the same thing in many places.  If there are 14 bills that already exist that deal with one item, the bill has to make multiple language changes to those 14 bills.  That could be upwards of 100 pages right there, depending on what language needs changed.

People in Congress have aides for a reason.  It is their job to go dig up what each part of the bill actually does and summarize it for their Rep.  I find it hard to believe that a single member of Congress doesn't have a pretty darn good idea what each section of this bill does, regardless of how many pages it might be.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Regardless of how long the bill is , it is n't a matter of " who read more than 100 of the 1990 pages of this thing before voting ?
" The bill itself , like any other bill in Washington , amends language to other existing bills and creates new language to be added .
Since this is a comprehensive bill , it is altering language in hundreds of bills to do essentially the same thing in many places .
If there are 14 bills that already exist that deal with one item , the bill has to make multiple language changes to those 14 bills .
That could be upwards of 100 pages right there , depending on what language needs changed .
People in Congress have aides for a reason .
It is their job to go dig up what each part of the bill actually does and summarize it for their Rep. I find it hard to believe that a single member of Congress does n't have a pretty darn good idea what each section of this bill does , regardless of how many pages it might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Regardless of how long the bill is, it isn't a matter of "who read more than 100 of the 1990 pages of this thing before voting?
"  The bill itself, like any other bill in Washington, amends language to other existing bills and creates new language to be added.
Since this is a comprehensive bill, it is altering language in hundreds of bills to do essentially the same thing in many places.
If there are 14 bills that already exist that deal with one item, the bill has to make multiple language changes to those 14 bills.
That could be upwards of 100 pages right there, depending on what language needs changed.
People in Congress have aides for a reason.
It is their job to go dig up what each part of the bill actually does and summarize it for their Rep.  I find it hard to believe that a single member of Congress doesn't have a pretty darn good idea what each section of this bill does, regardless of how many pages it might be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023042</id>
	<title>What has slipped under the radar...</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1257703740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Despite all the debunkable noise we hear from the right wing that Pelosi is going to come grab you and throw you in prison for being poor enough that you can't afford to pay the premium, there <i>is</i> something sinister about this bill that has slipped by both right and left:
<p>
Your mere existence is now taxable.
</p><p>
People who like to claim that "there are no illegal aliens because people aren't illegal" are about to find their words ringing hollow in an especially perverse way.
</p><p>
You can be a monk meditating on a mountain somewhere for 5 years and be gang raped by the government's black and hispanic prison gangs for doing so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite all the debunkable noise we hear from the right wing that Pelosi is going to come grab you and throw you in prison for being poor enough that you ca n't afford to pay the premium , there is something sinister about this bill that has slipped by both right and left : Your mere existence is now taxable .
People who like to claim that " there are no illegal aliens because people are n't illegal " are about to find their words ringing hollow in an especially perverse way .
You can be a monk meditating on a mountain somewhere for 5 years and be gang raped by the government 's black and hispanic prison gangs for doing so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite all the debunkable noise we hear from the right wing that Pelosi is going to come grab you and throw you in prison for being poor enough that you can't afford to pay the premium, there is something sinister about this bill that has slipped by both right and left:

Your mere existence is now taxable.
People who like to claim that "there are no illegal aliens because people aren't illegal" are about to find their words ringing hollow in an especially perverse way.
You can be a monk meditating on a mountain somewhere for 5 years and be gang raped by the government's black and hispanic prison gangs for doing so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026974</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>Nithendil</author>
	<datestamp>1257687000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't want my money paying for abortions because I believe it is murder, and I am neither Republican nor part of the Religious Right.</p><p>Right now I believe women should have to the right to them (on a state based level) because I understand the consequences of making it illegal (back alley abortions being one of them) but by no means should I have to pay for what I believe to be an act of murder. And yes I do believe the same thing for most wars or "engagements", but obviously I have little choice in the matter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want my money paying for abortions because I believe it is murder , and I am neither Republican nor part of the Religious Right.Right now I believe women should have to the right to them ( on a state based level ) because I understand the consequences of making it illegal ( back alley abortions being one of them ) but by no means should I have to pay for what I believe to be an act of murder .
And yes I do believe the same thing for most wars or " engagements " , but obviously I have little choice in the matter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want my money paying for abortions because I believe it is murder, and I am neither Republican nor part of the Religious Right.Right now I believe women should have to the right to them (on a state based level) because I understand the consequences of making it illegal (back alley abortions being one of them) but by no means should I have to pay for what I believe to be an act of murder.
And yes I do believe the same thing for most wars or "engagements", but obviously I have little choice in the matter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022324</id>
	<title>Big gov't has such a great track record of success</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257699540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Big gov't has such a great track record of success...<br>
&nbsp; - U.S. Post Service, 234 years later, well not so much.<br>
&nbsp; - Social Security, 74 years later, well no.<br>
&nbsp; - Fannie Mae, 71 years later, na<br>
&nbsp; - War on Poverty, 45 years later, naa<br>
&nbsp; - Medicare and Medicaid, 44 years later, no<br>
&nbsp; - Freddie Mac, 39 years later, no<br>
&nbsp; - Department of Energy 32 years later, no<br>
&nbsp; - Gov't run health care, hell no</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Big gov't has such a great track record of success.. .   - U.S. Post Service , 234 years later , well not so much .
  - Social Security , 74 years later , well no .
  - Fannie Mae , 71 years later , na   - War on Poverty , 45 years later , naa   - Medicare and Medicaid , 44 years later , no   - Freddie Mac , 39 years later , no   - Department of Energy 32 years later , no   - Gov't run health care , hell no</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Big gov't has such a great track record of success...
  - U.S. Post Service, 234 years later, well not so much.
  - Social Security, 74 years later, well no.
  - Fannie Mae, 71 years later, na
  - War on Poverty, 45 years later, naa
  - Medicare and Medicaid, 44 years later, no
  - Freddie Mac, 39 years later, no
  - Department of Energy 32 years later, no
  - Gov't run health care, hell no</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30030484</id>
	<title>Re:How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257764040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just #4 would be HUGE!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just # 4 would be HUGE !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just #4 would be HUGE!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023722</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1257708000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Jesus, the amount of bullshit that is getting high mods in this discussion is ludicrous.  This is the worst example I've seen yet, but I'm only halfway through.</p><p>This is why the whole system is fucked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Jesus , the amount of bullshit that is getting high mods in this discussion is ludicrous .
This is the worst example I 've seen yet , but I 'm only halfway through.This is why the whole system is fucked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Jesus, the amount of bullshit that is getting high mods in this discussion is ludicrous.
This is the worst example I've seen yet, but I'm only halfway through.This is why the whole system is fucked.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025606</id>
	<title>Re:How healthcare should be fixed</title>
	<author>QuoteMstr</author>
	<datestamp>1257678300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, so insurance companies would still be able to deny you for pre-existing conditions? They would still be able to, as soon as you got sick, retroactively revoke coverage and use the excuse of minor clerical errors?</p><p>Fuck off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , so insurance companies would still be able to deny you for pre-existing conditions ?
They would still be able to , as soon as you got sick , retroactively revoke coverage and use the excuse of minor clerical errors ? Fuck off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, so insurance companies would still be able to deny you for pre-existing conditions?
They would still be able to, as soon as you got sick, retroactively revoke coverage and use the excuse of minor clerical errors?Fuck off.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028928</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1257702600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously....the abortion issue is not that big of a deal.  A typical abortion at a reputable clinic costs around $400.  And yes, I know that for sure.  I know someone who has had one recently.  "Morning After" type abortions are something like $50.  I guess later term abortions can get expensive but if you can't figure out that you are pregnant and don't want the kid within 3 months you probably deserve to pay more.</p><p>I realize that $400 is not small change for most people but it is a quite reasonable sum of money.  Public Health Care really isn't needed for this.  In fact, I favor health care (Public or Private) becoming more of "Disaster Care".  Pay way less for health care, pay for your own doctor's visits and minor, one time procedures out of pocket.  Need some major surgery or long term care?  Health care kicks in.  And no, I have not thought about it enough to determine what would be major or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously....the abortion issue is not that big of a deal .
A typical abortion at a reputable clinic costs around $ 400 .
And yes , I know that for sure .
I know someone who has had one recently .
" Morning After " type abortions are something like $ 50 .
I guess later term abortions can get expensive but if you ca n't figure out that you are pregnant and do n't want the kid within 3 months you probably deserve to pay more.I realize that $ 400 is not small change for most people but it is a quite reasonable sum of money .
Public Health Care really is n't needed for this .
In fact , I favor health care ( Public or Private ) becoming more of " Disaster Care " .
Pay way less for health care , pay for your own doctor 's visits and minor , one time procedures out of pocket .
Need some major surgery or long term care ?
Health care kicks in .
And no , I have not thought about it enough to determine what would be major or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously....the abortion issue is not that big of a deal.
A typical abortion at a reputable clinic costs around $400.
And yes, I know that for sure.
I know someone who has had one recently.
"Morning After" type abortions are something like $50.
I guess later term abortions can get expensive but if you can't figure out that you are pregnant and don't want the kid within 3 months you probably deserve to pay more.I realize that $400 is not small change for most people but it is a quite reasonable sum of money.
Public Health Care really isn't needed for this.
In fact, I favor health care (Public or Private) becoming more of "Disaster Care".
Pay way less for health care, pay for your own doctor's visits and minor, one time procedures out of pocket.
Need some major surgery or long term care?
Health care kicks in.
And no, I have not thought about it enough to determine what would be major or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023370</id>
	<title>Re:A Step Into the Dark Ages</title>
	<author>Wamoc</author>
	<datestamp>1257705780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>however, the amendment restricting abortion coverage is HUGE step backwards and another reminder just how much the lunatic Religious Right has taken hold in the US.  Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again.</p></div><p>I am sorry but you cannot tout yourself as all high and mighty for picking pro-choice.  It is a highly controversial subject that actually the majority of Americans think that there should be atleast some restrictions on abortions. The question is not with as you say "Religious nutjobs" think an act is wrong while others think its right, the question is when does human life begin. All rights relating to life begin when life begins, so if an unborn child is a life, then rights and liberties begin then, and abortions would be murder. If an unborn child is not a life, then rights and liberties do not start until birth, and abortions are completely ok.

To use "the other guy is crazy" in an argument is just obscuring the facts and the argument. You touting that argument is showing yourself as a "Religious fanatic" on the other side of the fence. You provide no sound argument and are actually just blowing a lot of hot air.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>however , the amendment restricting abortion coverage is HUGE step backwards and another reminder just how much the lunatic Religious Right has taken hold in the US .
Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again.I am sorry but you can not tout yourself as all high and mighty for picking pro-choice .
It is a highly controversial subject that actually the majority of Americans think that there should be atleast some restrictions on abortions .
The question is not with as you say " Religious nutjobs " think an act is wrong while others think its right , the question is when does human life begin .
All rights relating to life begin when life begins , so if an unborn child is a life , then rights and liberties begin then , and abortions would be murder .
If an unborn child is not a life , then rights and liberties do not start until birth , and abortions are completely ok . To use " the other guy is crazy " in an argument is just obscuring the facts and the argument .
You touting that argument is showing yourself as a " Religious fanatic " on the other side of the fence .
You provide no sound argument and are actually just blowing a lot of hot air .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>however, the amendment restricting abortion coverage is HUGE step backwards and another reminder just how much the lunatic Religious Right has taken hold in the US.
Hopefully this does not force people into coat hangers and whiskey again.I am sorry but you cannot tout yourself as all high and mighty for picking pro-choice.
It is a highly controversial subject that actually the majority of Americans think that there should be atleast some restrictions on abortions.
The question is not with as you say "Religious nutjobs" think an act is wrong while others think its right, the question is when does human life begin.
All rights relating to life begin when life begins, so if an unborn child is a life, then rights and liberties begin then, and abortions would be murder.
If an unborn child is not a life, then rights and liberties do not start until birth, and abortions are completely ok.

To use "the other guy is crazy" in an argument is just obscuring the facts and the argument.
You touting that argument is showing yourself as a "Religious fanatic" on the other side of the fence.
You provide no sound argument and are actually just blowing a lot of hot air.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020848</id>
	<title>Strikers Vow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257688980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I swear , by my life and my love of it , that I will never live for the sake of another man , nor ask another man to live for mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021812</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257696180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>how the hell is this modded insightful? we have been losing at least a quarter million jobs a month.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>how the hell is this modded insightful ?
we have been losing at least a quarter million jobs a month .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how the hell is this modded insightful?
we have been losing at least a quarter million jobs a month.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025294</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>MadUndergrad</author>
	<datestamp>1257676200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perfectly working cars? I'm sorry, I thought it was called Cash for Clunkers, not Cash for Efficient, New, Perfectly-Working Cars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perfectly working cars ?
I 'm sorry , I thought it was called Cash for Clunkers , not Cash for Efficient , New , Perfectly-Working Cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perfectly working cars?
I'm sorry, I thought it was called Cash for Clunkers, not Cash for Efficient, New, Perfectly-Working Cars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024704</id>
	<title>Re:The supreme cout will rule it unconstitutional</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257672180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't the next republican administration just kill this, or water it down so it becomes dead letter?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't the next republican administration just kill this , or water it down so it becomes dead letter ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't the next republican administration just kill this, or water it down so it becomes dead letter?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023418</id>
	<title>Re:Fixing all the WRONG problems</title>
	<author>SBFCOblivion</author>
	<datestamp>1257706020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.</p></div><p>It didn't fail because it worked too well. It failed because it was a waste of fucking money!. <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2009/10/620000657/1" title="usatoday.com" rel="nofollow">$24,000</a> [usatoday.com] per car? Really?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that I do n't really like the CfC idea , but it 's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.It did n't fail because it worked too well .
It failed because it was a waste of fucking money ! .
$ 24,000 [ usatoday.com ] per car ?
Really ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that I don't really like the CfC idea, but it's ridiculous to say it failed because it worked too well.It didn't fail because it worked too well.
It failed because it was a waste of fucking money!.
$24,000 [usatoday.com] per car?
Really?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021170</id>
	<title>Re:Seems like the european socialist are out in fo</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1257692100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The entire concept of "social welfare" permits people to consume more than they produce. In fact, it encourages this behavior.</p></div></blockquote><p>Denying social welfare dooms people to that behaviour.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The entire concept of " social welfare " permits people to consume more than they produce .
In fact , it encourages this behavior.Denying social welfare dooms people to that behaviour .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The entire concept of "social welfare" permits people to consume more than they produce.
In fact, it encourages this behavior.Denying social welfare dooms people to that behaviour.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026974
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30034188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020848
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021014
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028510
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021924
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022000
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022710
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022374
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025606
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024174
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023060
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021570
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021110
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023722
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028206
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021270
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023006
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029312
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021182
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026306
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021492
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30030684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023624
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021216
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021310
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30085884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30036030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022004
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021378
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022942
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30032988
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026142
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023068
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023416
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022566
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021444
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021820
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023070
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023340
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30084758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026832
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30030484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30035744
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024106
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020994
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021896
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023400
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021332
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024394
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021428
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022286
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021512
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021010
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022114
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027656
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021424
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023370
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021174
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022750
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021338
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027756
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024156
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_08_0534209_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022778
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022220
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021086
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022114
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027656
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30030684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026330
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021858
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020858
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021116
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021924
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023416
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028510
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026832
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020984
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021820
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021560
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022390
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021512
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022050
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021962
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021014
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021060
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024106
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021570
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022004
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30034188
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021002
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021382
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022170
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020994
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021492
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021506
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021074
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027612
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026992
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020982
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021612
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027576
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026502
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023294
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024156
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30036030
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022350
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022664
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021484
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021360
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023722
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021338
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021486
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021216
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023418
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022566
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023070
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021424
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021332
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024394
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30035744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022710
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023624
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022778
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028206
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026974
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022942
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020966
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021174
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023068
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022750
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021346
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021292
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30028316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024480
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023400
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30029802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026280
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023006
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30084758
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020874
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30032988
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024652
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30027756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30085884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30030484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025606
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30025394
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30023142
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021314
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021400
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021110
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_08_0534209.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30020958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021310
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30026710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30024174
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30022074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_08_0534209.30021298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
