In Maine where, like many heavily rural states, private insurance companies enjoy little or no competition, it’s no wonder that even with insurance, Jean has $12,000 in out-of-pocket medical expenses each year. Recently, Jean had to move out of her house and into an efficiency apartment. She took out her ever first credit card to cover medical costs. And still she regularly skips doses of medicine because she simply can’t afford the care she needs.

There are millions of Jeans in rural communities across the United States. A recent report, “Sweet the Bitter Drought: Why Rural America Needs Health Care Reform,” released by the Center for Community Change and the Center for Rural Affairs, documents that while our broken health care system is affecting all Americans, rural Americans are disproportionately impacted. Rural Americans are more likely to be uninsured or under-insured than their urban counterparts and 82 percent of rural counties are classified as medically underserved areas. The report leaves little question that rural Americans like Jean have perhaps the most to gain from health care reform.

And yet politicians from rural states and districts, including Blue Dog Democrats and moderates on the Senate Finance Committee, have argued that rural voters oppose health care reform. They suggest that the few vocal screamers at town halls on television represent the silent majority. Nothing could be further from the truth. Pollster John Anzalone found that the plurality of swing voters in these rural districts support reform, including a robust public option. And when the Center for Community Change talked with hundreds of rural voters at county fairs this summer, we confirmed the broad support for reform.

Politicians who claim that rural voters oppose health care reform, including a public health insurance option, are looking for any excuse to help insurance company donors, rather than their constituents. The sad thing is, if politicians succeed in misrepresenting rural voters to kill reform, the quality of health care for Jean and everyone like her will only decline.

Patient: Well doc, for all the good they did me, I might as well’ve stuck ‘em up me @$$.

Have done my best to send a message to the online world…MODERN LIBERALISM is actually in fact SECULAR SOCIALISM…
until we all realize that calling it anything else is not only inaccurate, it gives the secular socialists too much credit.

In order to change a society (say, USA from 1960) it must first be drained of two things (moral aspects)…those are shame and respect.
Did we not lose these in the 1960s?

Then the secularism creeps in more and more whereby mainstream religions are attacked (along with the normal moral family concept).
The secularists are experts at tearing down both traditional religions and the family.

How many TV programs must you see that trash adults (kids are smarter of course) and the family unit to realize this intentional “liberal” pattern?
Its secularism on the march year after year. The husband-father is too dumb to tie his shoes time after time.
Go back to that shame and respect thing…how many Simpson-like shows does it take?
How many shows where the gal whips up on guys does it take? How many little girls believe that bull?

When the virus of secularism has sufficiently weakened a culture it is ripe for the dependency of socialism. How many reports of liberals in grade school teaching secular socialism does it take?

If within my power, all conservatives (we are labeled at will with neo-con, wingnuts, radical right, etc) should, from this moment forward, do two things…
become a lot more aggressive in defending conservatism and refer to modern liberalism as secular socialism…let’s set the rules for a big change.

There are NO liberals, there are NO secular progressives, there are NO progressives…they are ALL secular socialists.
Use it in all posts…go on offense with accurate truth!
If I can, we all can…and should.

Toby, another home run on the ‘toons.