Will Obamacare get its act together in time?

[Aeson]

It'll probably be one of those things we'll never know, but I suspect he would have made the trip anyway to complete China's realignment.

If we had been the ones sharing a border with China and adding on an invasion of Cambodia (which would be the best case scenario if we won Vietnam) ... we probably would have had worse relations with China and the USSR may have had better relations with them.

[notyoueither]

It'll probably be one of those things we'll never know, but I suspect he would have made the trip anyway to complete China's realignment.

Why?

A guy like Nixon doesn't make nice with commies unless there's a good reason, like he knew what a cluster**** Vietnam was becoming and his adminstration was having it's head handed to them on the nightly news.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

You mean the Lon Nol, who was allied with the Khmer Rouge? Then (with our support and the Vietnamese) was overthrown by Sihanouk ... who was allied with the Khmer Rouge? Or maybe it was how we supported the Khmer Rouge later on that makes you think we would have stopped their genocide?

You don't seem to have a good handle on the history here. The US clearly tried its best to keep the Khmer Rouge out of power (they were communists, after all) and it was the North Vietnamese (once the Americans had gone home) who finally gave the Khmer Rouge the support they needed to take power in Cambodia. Bad idea on their part since they had to invade Cambodia to remove the Khmer Rouge from power three years and a genocide later.

[Aeson]

You don't seem to have a good handle on the history here. The US clearly tried its best to keep the Khmer Rouge out of power (they were communists, after all) and it was the North Vietnamese (once the Americans had gone home) who finally gave the Khmer Rouge the support they needed to take power in Cambodia. Bad idea on their part since they had to invade Cambodia to remove the Khmer Rouge from power three years and a genocide later.

We didn't try our best. We did some indiscriminate bombing on what little was left of the country at that point. Before that we helped arm the Khmer Rouge (as allies of Sihanouk). At some point we flipped sides and started backing Lon Pol against the group we had previously been arming. Later we flipped around again and supported the Khmer Rouge directly.

Of course we also tucked our tails and ran away, leaving our allies (at the time) basically helpless.

The Vietnamese on the other hand kicked our asses, kicked our Cambodian ally's asses, then kicked the Khmer Rouge's asses. Occupying the whole of Vietnam would have made our nation building in Iraq look like choir practice in comparison. China was bright enough to just invade and get out quickly.

Winning Vietnam and having the Khmer Rouge as a neighbor would have lead to yet another bloody and pointless war for us. (Pointless because it would have only happened after the atrocities were mostly done with.) And the only thing we'd accomplish through all of that is to worsen our standing in the Cold War and likely resulted in the Khmer Rouge persisting in Cambodia for longer.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

Before that we helped arm the Khmer Rouge (as allies of Sihanouk). ... Later we flipped around again and supported the Khmer Rouge directly.

Your historical knowledge is about as reliable as Ben's.

[Aeson]

You're the one who thinks spending a couple more decades in Vietnam and fighting a second war with Cambodia would have been a good thing ...

[SlowwHand]

No, what would have been a good thing would have been to let the military run the military.

[Aeson]

No, what would have been a good thing would have been to let the military run the military.

No, what would have been a good thing is to stay out of it entirely. Not tried to pick up the pieces of failed French colonialism.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

You're the one who thinks spending a couple more decades in Vietnam and fighting a second war with Cambodia would have been a good thing ...

I'm certain all I said was that stopping the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia would've been a good thing. I'm sorry I've offended your pro-genocide sensibilities.

[MrFun]

We forced anti-communist dictatorships on South Korea, Taiwan, Greece, and a host of other currently free countries. South Vietnam would likely be free today, if it hadn't been over run by the North.

I did not realize that for a country's people to be free, that the first prerequisite is for the people to suffer under a dictatorship (crimes against humanity, disfranchisement, oppression, police state).

[Aeson]

I'm certain all I said was that stopping the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia would've been a good thing. I'm sorry I've offended your pro-genocide sensibilities.

No. You said it would have been good [if we had won in Vietnam and then had to fight the Khmer Rouge]. That was what you responded to with "Good." As for the genocide part, you used the term "maybe" in regards to preventing genocide. Even in your juvenile/conservative wet dream about Vietnam you couldn't muster up the conviction to say that we would have.

The reality is of course we weren't going to stop the genocide in Khmer Rouge regardless. We demonstrably couldn't win the war we were already in and didn't really give a **** about Cambodia or the Khmer Rouge. We went so far as to back the Khmer Rouge later against the Vietnamese even.

Having more of our armed forces tied up in Vietnam for longer would only have ensured that the Khmer Rouge stayed in power longer. Because it's the Vietnamese who took them out.

You should just let go of the butt-hurt you have about the US losing a war, and stop wishing prolonged atrocities by the Khmer Rouge onto a people who already suffered way more than they should have ...

[Ben Kenobi]

No, what would have been a good thing is to stay out of it entirely. Not tried to pick up the pieces of failed French colonialism.

As opposed to picking up the pieces of failed Spanish colonialism?

Imagine if the US had said this about Korea. Or the Philippines.

"Hey, South Korea - nobody cares about you."

You've got a functioning democracy as opposed to a totalitarian wasteland.

The US did the right thing in trying to save South Vietnam, and the South Vietnamese government. As someone who's a substantial beneficiary of US intervention in this part of the world, your statement here is shockingly oblivious.

[Ben Kenobi]

I did not realize that for a country's people to be free, that the first prerequisite is for the people to suffer under a dictatorship (crimes against humanity, disfranchisement, oppression, police state).

Are you suggesting that the people of Vietnam are better off under communism? I suggest you go live there.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

No. You said it would have been good [if we had won in Vietnam and then had to fight the Khmer Rouge]. That was what you responded to with "Good."

You do understand that brackets are used to denote words that weren't actually used, right? Anyway, thank you for proving that I didn't make the strawman argument you're tearing down.

[The Mad Monk]

You Also Can't Keep Your Doctor
I had great cancer doctors and health insurance.My plan was cancelled. Now I worry how long I'll live.

By
Edie Littlefield Sundby
Nov. 3, 2013 6:37 p.m. ET

Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.

My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.

My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.

Countless hours searching for non-exchange plans have uncovered nothing that compares well with my existing coverage. But the greatest source of frustration is Covered California, the state's Affordable Care Act health-insurance exchange and, by some reports, one of the best such exchanges in the country. After four weeks of researching plans on the website, talking directly to government exchange counselors, insurance companies and medical providers, my insurance broker and I are as confused as ever. Time is running out and we still don't have a clue how to best proceed.

Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.

But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.

You would think it would be simple to find a health-exchange plan that allows me, living in San Diego, to continue to see my primary oncologist at Stanford University and my primary care doctors at the University of California, San Diego. Not so. UCSD has agreed to accept only one Covered California plan—a very restrictive Anthem EPO Plan. EPO stands for exclusive provider organization, which means the plan has a small network of doctors and facilities and no out-of-network coverage (as in a preferred-provider organization plan) except for emergencies. Stanford accepts an Anthem PPO plan but it is not available for purchase in San Diego (only Anthem HMO and EPO plans are available in San Diego).

So if I go with a health-exchange plan, I must choose between Stanford and UCSD. Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are.

Before the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance policies could not be sold across state lines; now policies sold on the Affordable Care Act exchanges may not be offered across county lines.

What happened to the president's promise, "You can keep your health plan"? Or to the promise that "You can keep your doctor"? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people's ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that's a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that's the point.

Ms. Sundby lives in California.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446

On the bolded: Holy crap. Is that nationwide, or just backwoods San Diego?