Posted By: cindydrake @ 11/25/2008 8:49:08 AM

I have no problem with doctors and hospitals making a good salary, but the rates hospitals charge are out of this world. I had an Essure sterilization procedure done 2 years ago. This procedure is outpatient and involves no incision. Three hours at the hospital, and they send me a bill for $11,000. That is ridiculous for something with no incision and where I had no complications. Once I went to the ER with what turned out to be pneumonia, and that hospital wanted $1,600 for putting an IV in me and prescribing some antibiotics. Thankfully, I have insurance, but so many people don't, or if they do, the coverage would leave them owing huge amounts.

Yes, doctors are talented and trained and do wonderful things, and I'm OK with them being well-paid. But the bills I've had from hospitals seem out of proportion for the work done, at least in my case. Regular capitalist market theory does not work on health care unless it's cosmetic surgery. If market forces worked, then every time a new doctor or hospital opened up, prices would go down and practices would try to keep their prices in line with the market norm. But health care keeps going up every year, regardless of how many doctors are in your town.

I'm wondering why we can find money to fight the war in Iraq and bail out the greedy banks, yet we can't fund national healthcare, at least basic services.

Another comment boils down this argument:

Posted By: ekay1946 @ 11/25/2008 2:17:25 PM

The current medical care crises is a continuing example of our need for universal affordable health care. We are the only country in the western world where people are going into poverty and catastrophic financial debts to pay for medical services. the private for-profit model of health care is unacceptable as well as immoral, and it doesn't work. The multi-tiered delivery of health care based on the ability to pay is criminal. Health care is not a business, it is a public service and a right, not a privilege or a luxury. It is a god given human right.

After Sarah Kliff wrote a story about the perils of being a vegetarian on Thanksgiving – no thanks, Tofurky – readers debated the merits of meat-eating. Ironically enough, the tone of the conversation wasn’t exactly meal-time appropriate: “In the future, people will look back in horror & disgust at these dark days where humans actually ate the cut up insides of dead animals & drank their body fluids,” wrote one reader. “There are just some things civilized people don’t put in their mouths.”

The carnivores fought back: “One apparent common trait among most of the Vegetarians or Vegans that posted on this article is that they are self-centered,” argued one commenter. “Why does thanksgiving have to be about just you? Most people disagree with you but they tolerate you.” Ouch. Another reader said that it’s not about toleration when it comes to planning a Thanksgiving meal, it’s about awareness: “Many years ago, my son asked to bring his then-girlfriend home for Christmas dinner,” began this reader’s story. “So I went all-out, cooking a turkey and all the stuff that goes with it. My son waited until the two of them arrived at my house to mention, ‘Oh, by the way, she’s a vegetarian.’ I was miffed. Not with her; with him. He could have TOLD ME BEFOREHAND and I could've cooked something else for her.”

But according to some vegetarians who commented, that sort of planning is simply unnecessary. “I have been a vegetarian for 20 years and it has never been a main topic of a family get together,” said one reader before explaining that her Thanksgiving goes something like this: “‘Hey do you want some turkey?’ ‘No Thanks.’ The end.”

Sounds simple enough. But for all you vegetarians out there, does that seem fair? And for the carnivores, what’s the big deal if someone else chooses to abstain from meat? Sound off below.

The piece has received a great deal of criticism from readers, much of which lashes the author for what they regarded as a sensationalist headline: "Is Obama the Antichrist?" In our own comments section, there were hundreds of strongly worded (and often offensive) responses. "Devoting column space to this drivel speaks so well of Newsweek," started one reader, in a comment dripping with sarcasm. Some questioned whether the piece credibly qualified as journalism, calling the piece a "dangerous" provocation. "Shame on you Newsweek for adding any kind of legitimacy to this story from fearfully creative minds," wrote one reader. "Obama is the first politician in too many years to have hope as an inspiration as his platform, as opposed to fear and control. I am appalled by your lack of taste and judgment."

Others insisted that the column was full of "extreme right rhetoric," even suggesting that there was a tone of bigotry or hatred to the piece. "Does it matter to you, Newsweek editors, that you're encouraging all the wingnut loonies out there?" asked one reader. "Or is attracting attention all that matters to you?" As with other stories, there's a general assumption that a piece of controversial writing in a national magazine is injurious to society.  And even among Christians, there was a sense betrayal for portraying a small portion of believers. "To everyone reading this," cautioned one reader, "there are a LOT of Christians who would laugh at this story just like me." Many faulted the piece for failing to provide sufficient context for Strandberg's beliefs in the short space allotted for the column.

Debate over the article spilled out into the blogosphere. In a post featured on DailyKos, one writer claimed that "Miller's column is brimming with ignorance and paranoia which seems to be purposefully crafted to fan the flames of fear and hate." And a Washington Monthly blog post by writer Steve Benen faulted NEWSWEEK for giving a platform to, in his words, “strange people who believe strange things.

"When bizarre, fringe publications speculate openly about who may or may not be the Antichrist, it's easy to dismiss,” he wrote. “When Newsweek publishes a 600-word piece on those who wonder about Obama being the Antichrist, one really has to wonder what on earth the editors were thinking."

A minority of readers applauded the piece for presenting oft-ignored views. "I thank Lisa Miller for producing a very unbiased article just giving the facts about what some people believe," argued H.R. Robinson. "She is not condoning these beliefs nor is she trashing them, she is just presenting them. It doesn't matter if the beliefs are mainstream or even crazy, the fact of the matter is that some people believe this stuff. Period. There is no need for personal attacks on her, she is just doing her job."

Due to the criticism, I asked Lisa Miller if she would write a response for the blog. Here's her take, which she asked me to print in full:

On Nov. 5, I was on the phone with a source, a conservative Christian who was disappointed in the result of the election. But something else disappointed him more. Too many of his colleagues on the right, he said, were unable to focus on moving ahead. Too many of them, he told me, saw the result as a catastrophe, a sign of the end; some of them were talking about the president-elect as if he were the anti-Christ. I was intrigued for two reasons. The Barack Obama campaign had faced much criticism for the Messiah-like aura that surrounded it. Now, a certain constituency of far-right Christians were looking at the president-elect as the devil—or at least, as devilish. This seemed to me to be newsworthy. As I looked into it, I saw that the Antichrist idea had been "out there," in various ways, in local papers and on sites like Politico and USNews.com. Second, I felt that all the stories about the "new evangelicals" during this election season had obscured a very important reality in the Christian landscape: a third of white evangelicals believe that the world will end in their lifetimes, according to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public life. In other words, Americans with an apocalyptic worldview, who believe that the Bible contains prophesy predicting the end of time, are far from extinct.

Apocalypticism, the idea that God will bring about the end of history soon (in a series of events whose exact order has been debated for centuries) and reward the righteous with heaven, has been around since before the birth of Jesus. Many reputable scholars now believe that Jesus himself was an apocalyptic prophet and preached something like this warning, from the Gospel of Mark: "The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe in the Gospel." The controversy over the sanity of this perspective began on the first Easter, when Jesus rose from the dead, according to the gospels, and the world stayed right where it was. The sun rose and set and rose again. The history of Christianity has, in some sense, been a story about reconciling these foreboding teachings of Jesus—and of the apostle Paul—with history as it goes on and on. Today, most mainstream Christians think about Jesus's apocalpyticism in more metaphorical terms, not as real-time warnings. But through the centuries, there have been many who continued to mine the Bible for exact information about where, when and how the world would end. Millennialists have thrived in America; Todd Strandberg, the lead character in our story, is one of them.

I do not endorse millennialist theology, but I do not dismiss it either. I am a journalist, not a rabbi; I do not aim to condone one truth claim above another, for that way madness lies. (Did God really part the Red Sea? Did Jesus, sentenced to death for political crimes, really rise from the dead after three days in a cave? Did Mohammed really travel to heaven to talk to God? Did an angel named Moroni descend from heaven to show a young American boy named Joseph Smith the location of secret tablets upon which scripture was written?) Christians with an apocalyptic worldview are important to the story of Christianity and in America, their values have to a great degree shaped what we call the culture wars. Many of them believe that what they see as the creep of secular progressivism is a prelude to the end of the world. They are an important part of the American fabric, and in my view, worth 600 words in a national magazine. As I do with most controversial subjects, I let these end-times believers speak for themselves, hoping that readers would draw their own conclusions about the soundness of their beliefs. I never imagined that readers would think that they spoke for NEWSWEEK or for me.

In our new transition blog, Powering Up, Richard Wolffe offers this nugget from Obama's transition co-chair, John Podesta: “He wants to see not just Democrats in office, but he’s made a pledge to ensure that we reach out and have Republicans and independents, not just at a token level,” Podesta says. “There’s sort of been a tradition of having at least one person from the other party at the beginning of an administration in the cabinet. His commitment is to deepen that and to look even just beyond the cabinet, to try to bring people who agree with the direction that he wants to take the country and, regardless of party, to serve in the government.”

Judging from the early comments, bipartisanship has been—surprisingly—met with some skepticism. "Well, just because our national government has been screwed up for so many decades, it doesn't mean that somebody might come in and straighten it out one day," writes commenter Olderwiser. "I'm going to give them some time and see what happens. I remember how pleased I was when Bush came into office and it was said that he was a person who united factions adverse to each other. We looked up one day and had probably as divided a bunch of factions as the country has ever had." Others agreed that it seemed strange to pull people from the other side, especially after such a confrontational campaign. "It would seem that a bipartisan stance could be maintained without offering positions to people who would do most anything against you while you are campaigning for office," adds one commenter who encouraged that we "widen the base of involved people" and stray away from "retreads." In other words, let's get more people involved! (Though, I guess it is only fair to point you here so you can get a taste for the application process. Good luck.)

Now, back to issues of bipartisanship. While at the Harvard Law Review, Obama disappointed some of his fiercest supporters after he appointed more conservatives than liberals to the review once he was elected. As commenter jkellerman writes: "He thought it important to appoint the most qualified people even if they didn't agree with his ideological perspective to bring a balanced well-rounded view. Sure, Obama will be the man in charge, but I believe the skeptics may be pleasantly surprised at how different this presidency will actually be run."

A differently-run presidency? That's something both sides can get behind.

This week, Melissa Farley and Norma Ramos wrote an op-ed saying it was unjust that former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer wasn't criminally charged for prostitution. In writing, Farley (who is the founder of the nonprofit group Prostitution Research and Education) and Ramos (the coexecutive director of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women) argue that "U.S. Attorney Michael J. Garcia's decision not to pursue criminal charges against Mr. Spitzer for buying women in prostitution is a stunning betrayal of the public trust."

It is a statement that many readers agreed with, most pulling the card that if Spitzer were a "normal citizen," he would be behind bars: "I guess we argue that he should get a break because of his position and public service," wrote one reader, "But I sure hope I can get the same break if I make a similar mistake." Others pointed out that law enforcement and prostitution have always played against each other precariously; as cops continue to clean the streets, the business of prostitution continues to thrive. "Law enforcement has typically prosecuted the women involved in prostitution while turning a blind eye to the johns who buy them," observes one commenter. "Just another glaring example of sexism in America." Regardless of how the law handles prostitution or sexism, many agreed that Spitzer knew what he was getting into. "Whether you think prostitution should be illegal or not is not the question," says JenDee. "The fact is that he was quite aware of the law and chose to break it. He should be prosecuted as such."

On the flipside, many commenters argued that the prostitute Spitzer hired, Ashley Dupre, may be considered less of a victim because of the money she earned while working. So maybe she deserves less protection from the law? "I am sure that there are women (and men) who are forced into prostitution against their will," says one reader. "But I am also virtually certain that none of the women whom the former Governor solicited are in that group." Others agreed: "Ashley became a pro to support a glamorous lifestyle and didn't have the money to pay for it," argued one reader. "She was NOT destitute and did not need the money so badly like so many other young women. She used him and he used her. She's not a victim and therefore no prosecution is necessary because of equal protection under the law."

The argument that this specific case was "victimless" is one that many readers brought up in support of the former Governor. "They are both willfully breaking the law," said one reader of the situation, followed by another reader adding, " if people in high places can not behave orderly, why should they expect others to behave?" Good question. Perhaps there's a solution to be found in one of the first comments on the piece: "At the least, Mr. Spitzer should be required to perform community service," the comment begins. "He should be ordered to work for one of the numerous agencies that try to rebuild the lives of the women involved in prostitution. Maybe some firsthand experience with women whose lives were destroyed by prostitution would rehabilitate Mr. Spitzer."

What do you think of that solution? And should Ashley have similar responsibilities? Is she a victim, or is this a "victimless crime"? Sound off below.

In the wake of Obama's victory, Princeton's Julian E. Zelizer wrote an essay about the reasons McCain floundered. "Worst Campaign Ever?" asked the provocative headline, a question that had hundreds of readers -- mostly self-proclaimed conservatives -- offering their own takes on what went wrong for Mr. McCain. Think of it as our version of an exit poll, or at least, an inside ear at what happened behind the curtains on Tuesday.

First off, there was the maverick's veep choice. Oh, Sarah Palin. A majority of the comments, perhaps unsurprisingly, looked something like this: "John McCain is an incredible man and a true American. Sarah Palin is a joke," one reader said, adding that: "I wanted to vote for him and ended up having to vote against the prospect of her. Sad really." To be fair, there were a couple comments that defended Mrs. Palin, but both angles are fascinating because they get at whether Americans vote based on vice presidential candidates. Conventional wisdom says No, but comments on Zelizer's piece suggest otherwise. "I left the Republican Party because I was tired of dumb people and dumb politicians. Let there be no doubt, Sarah Palin in the one politician on the political landscape who is able to make G.W. Bush look somewhat bright," said one nouveau liberal. "McCain's choice of Palin was insulting and offensive. I have to admit that I wanted to vote for McCain, I really did. But he made that impossible when he introduced Stupid into his campaign platform."

For others, it wasn't Palin herself, but the symbolism of that choice as something manipulative and malicious. We all can admit that the Alaskan Governor added some much-needed energy and excitement to the GOP ticket. But once that flame died down -- and Katie Couric flared up -- readers were annoyed by the political malfeasance. "Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber," started one comment, "When I heard McCain refer to Joe as an "American hero," and when he said, "When I go to Washington, I'm taking Joe with me," I knew it was over for me. No question that I could even consider giving him my vote. And I've always liked John McCain, too." Others called up the Joe the Plumber scenario as evidence that McCain was grasping for straws, that he didn't have a concrete message to deliver to the viewers, especially once the economy faltered. "He politicized the Wall Street debacle and showed that he was willing to do anything to be Prez.," wrote one voter, while another added: "McCain lost because he didn't know why he was running and clearly could not articulate why he wanted to be President."

For yet another cohort, it had nothing to do with fundamentalism, nor Sarah Palin, nor McCain's lack of state-strategy. It had to do with us -- the media. "McCain made mistakes during the campaign but it is fairly clear that he had the deck stacked against him with the mainstream media," declared one reader. "The media overall were clearly looking to elect Obama, and that's a major handicap to overcome." Others agreed, saying that McCain probably shouldn't have let Palin talk to Katie Couric, but that the MSM got in the way of McCain and his message -- especially as it pertained to Wall Street. "McCain lost because the media was in the bag for Obama from the start and also because of the timing of the economic blow-up," said one comment. "There was nothing his campaign could do to overcome these two obstacles."

And in the end, he didn't overcome those obstacles. But maybe it wasn't that bad, as many readers reminded Zelizer on the comment board. "McCain's campaign is definitely not the worse ever," argued one reader. "Just look at the results, McCain got 174 electoral votes, which is more than Bush Sr. (168) and Bob Dole (159). And Goldwater, whom you mentioned in the article, got trounced by LBJ, getting only 52 electoral votes." And as one reader reminded, there was also the 2000 campaign, when Al Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee.

For our issue that hits newsstands tomorrow, Editor Jon Meacham wrote a story about what Obama will have to do in order to run the government as effectively as he ran his campaign. It's great to read the comments today, as they are an outpouring of excitement for the future mixed with reflections on last night. Looking forward, y'all are excited -- so why not highlight that here?

So now that this election has almost been called, I'm putting out a call to arms for your pure, unadulterated feedback. I want to hear what you think of the outcome and what you're looking forward to. What will these next four years bring? What did this election mean for our country? and what's next for nation united under, dare I say, President Obama?                                       

Our goal is to put together an audio gallery. So here's the scoop: call and leave a message for "Newsweek Audio Reports" at 212.445.5059 sharing your hopes and thoughts. Leave your name and a call-back number. Then, send along of photo of yourself (include your name, again) to my e-mail address: kurt.soller@newsweek.com

Polling wunderkind Nate Silver wrote his take for Newsweek.com on what states you should be watching from 7 p.m. onward tonight. It was a schedule that many out there appreciated; there were a fair share of "Thanks" from readers, despite Silver's own political leanings. "I know you prefer Obama to win, but I think your analysis has been based on facts and the best knowledge and data you can gather," said one reader. "You got me through the election," wrote another of FiveThirtyEight.com. But despite these accolades, readers nationwide offered their own view from the ground. After Silver said that an early Obama lead may discourage conservatives to the polls in California, one reader responded: "What Mr. Silver doesn't realize is that most Prop 8 supporters will show up at the polls despite McCain's numbers in the early returns, since most Republicans already know that McCain will lose California." Expanding on the proposition related to gay marriage, the commenter said, "This is such a polarizing issue that many formerly apathetic conservatives will vote just to make sure that 8 passes!"

Indiana readers had similar criticisms, reporting from their home state that pundits have it all wrong when handing the race to Obama. "Its funny hearing all these pundits saying Indiana is in play," wrote one reader. "They clearly don't know Indiana. The deck is so stacked against the dems here that it is highly unlikely for Obama to pull it off - the only real hope is for some down ticket coattails...The dems really need to step up their game if they ever want any progress in this reddest of red states."

With polls in that state set to close in mere hours, perhaps that comment is just wishful thinking. But it comes at the helm of others accusing NEWSWEEK of our own delusions. Because the article focused on the route that would lead Obama to victory, one critic wrote: "This article is yet another example of the media lovefest with Obama. Although the polls are telling us change is around the corner, change is about all we'll have left in our bank accounts." Another reader responded, adding somewhat dramatically, that the piece was an attempt for McCain supporters to be discouraged from voting, a liberal attempt to keep the polls streaming toward Obama. "This race is a lot closer than people are being told by the media," offered up that comment. "Since Saturday, the media has been trying to discourage McCain voters from voting by showing polls and headlines saying Obama is ahead by more than he is."

McCain supporters like the ones above were also present on the message board in some decidedly more acerbic ways. The comments section  was overwhelmed by mentions of Obama's race, assertions that he doesn't have a U.S. birth certificate, and scores of socialism. As in, you know, "Obama is a socialist." Others on the right side drew criticism for admitting: "Sorry, not ready for a Black president." Strong words that had others fighting back about a topic having little to do with Silver's predictions: "It is SAD and unacceptable that Americans are racist today. Shame and disgust is what I have for our nation. We are Americans [and] American does not mean white and Christian. Those spewing racist crap as reasons for Barack not to be president are victims of their unfortunate close-minded and uncultured upbringing."

Them's fighting words. "The comments here amaze me," said one reader. "I see racism, ignorance, left, right, black, white, and everything else under the sun. [One reader's] comments are ignorant and racist and [another's] response that he must be LDS are just as sad." This point came up often, as people poured their passion into McCain or Obama in ways that only could be read as angry. "Are people so paranoid that they have to write terrible things about other people?" asked one reader. "Whether you want someone to win the presidential campaign or not is no reason to attack."

After a twenty-month campaign, everyone obviously has had some time to build up strong beliefs. In the end, Silver's piece will be a useful guide regardless of who you support.  And if you're sick of supporting either candidate, then I'll leave this comment as your go-to take-away point. "Honestly, I don't care who wins anymore as long as Americans live better." Happy watching. Let me know what you think.

In the midst of the campaigns' last days, Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey used the McCain campaign's reported distancing from Bush to take a look at our current president and how he handles his attackers. The two reporters show him as a man with a surprising amount of equanimity toward his critics, but that doesn't mean the Bush Bashers didn't get heated themselves: "I seriously want to know what planet those who voted for W are from, because I'll be sure not to go there...What were they thinking?" asks one reader. "I understand that no president, like no human, is perfect. But we set ourselves up for this mess. And so it's time people start looking inward and STOP voting on party lines and letting labels dictate how they think and vote."

Comments attacking the President were numerous -- and expected. But this ire also brought out a surprising group of Americans: those that, despite the current executive's flat-lined approval ratings, still support him. Or, in the least, believe that these last years would be a challenge for any candidate. "I don't think President Bush is a perfect person or a perfect President" one comment said. "And I'm sure he'd say the same. But I also think no President since Abraham Lincoln has been the subject of such vicious attacks as he has been." Others added that the Liberal Media had doomed Bush's presidency from the start -- "portraying the guy as inept even before he got elected" -- before adding that W "went through stuff no other president aside from Roosevelt had to undergo." As he prepares for his January exit, and as tomorrow's election looms on our collective mind, this theme of looking back eight years predominated the comments as many also threw in their two cents on McCain or Obama.

Consider these words from rivaling readers: "I supported the President both elections. Disappointed and angry over the administration's failures of the last 8 years, I have been supporting Obama since the primaries. McCain, whom I used to admire, lost my vote not only because of his ties to the President, he also lost me because of his disloyalty to him. I am not surprised that McCain has 'thrown Bush under the bus." And then the other side: "You democrats have been trying to find something as scandalous as Clinton lying under oath so everything has been blown way out of proportion...Bush [has] done nothing wrong. If so, impeach him. Oh right, you can't."

Since many of the people who wrote these sorts of comments were GOP members, I was fascinated by the amount of people who don't just blame Bush for his lack of popularity, but also for potentially shifting the balance of power: "I am a Reagan Democrat and I believe GWB is a decent man but I am one of those who think his presidency is a disgrace," wrote a reader. "He stood with big business and watched the average families suffer. He stood over the destruction of the manufacturing sector, while CEOs made out like bandits. He forced unthinkable debt onto future generations and now the GOP will pay dearly. Because of him, the most liberal candidate ever will be elected and a ton of seats will be lost in Congress."

Feedback time! In lieu of encouraging readers to vote tomorrow, I'm looking for you all to comment below and tell me what sorts of free stuff you can get if you do indeed head to the polls. Think of it as crowd-sourcing, all inspired by Starbucks' clever campaign:

Voter bribery isn't allowed, so notice how Starbucks words their promotion:"Tell us you voted." Saying those magic words gets you the free joe (not voting itself). Gawker adds that you can also get a free Krispy Kreme donut, as well some Ben & Jerry's ice cream. Anything else you've got? Add it below.