What an idiot. He doesn't understand that the us subsidizes worldwide drugs and that's why they are so cheap. A complete and utter idiot.

But what's his stance on Canadian hookers?

Canada says thank you for showing us why we should pay attention to what's going on down there in your health care debate.

Good thinkin', Diaper Dave. Rather than bring our drug prices down to their level, let's bring theirs up to our level. It's exactly the same thing, except that vastly more consumers get screwed and won't be able to afford their prescriptions. But, that's not what's important.

What a freakin' genius. Is there anything good that the Republicans don't want to utterly destroy and replace with greedy monsters?

If I'm not mistaken, isn't Vitter's pending political action what many civilized countries would view as an act of war - purposefully attempting to destroy their economy for your benefit.

Regarding 1000-page bills: I feel even stranger saying that David Vitter has a point than I did about sticking up for the old guy yelling at Arlen Specter, but ... David Vitter has a point.

H.R. 3200, which I guess is the bill that everyone is talking about, is 1017 pages long. H.R. 676, the "single-payer" bill, is 30 pages long. The administration and/or the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for this mess for saddling health-care reform with this tree-killing doorstop. Is anyone on this thread seriously prepared to claim that they have read every word of the bill and actually understand all of it? Why, just to name the most infamous example, put a detail like end-of-life consultation into enabling legislation in the first place? That's the kind of stuff to let executive departments write regulations for. Which is why it's easy to wonder if the whole intent of both sides was to lard reform down until it dies of its own weight.

And by the way, the length and complexity of the bill lead to another question: when people say they do or don't support "Obama's reform plan," just what the hell are they talking about? The plan he negotiated in secret meetings with industry lobbyists? The 1000+ page House bill that will be amended 10,000 times? Whatever comes out of a future conference committee? That's why a lot of people, including me, are lukewarm at best about calling their Reps and saying, "I support the President's plan." We haven't the foggiest notion what it is, even less what it will become. "Medicare for All" would have been a simple and easy-to-defend concept. What we have is just a muddled mess.

About a decade ago, Paul Cellucci (as Ambassador to Canada) suggested that Canada ought to spend a lot more dollars for shiny weapons so that the West might be better defended against those existential threats that come from all corners at all times. Those dollars, he further suggested, ought to be facilitated through the dismantling of our social programs.

We Canadians really like Paul a lot. It's his wisdom and his empathy. And, as in this case with Vitter, we were and remain delighted to shoulder aside our rather silly local ideas in exchange for the spine-tingling thrill of even the briefest association with meglomania.

Years ago, SPY magazine had a feature on Rhodes scholars. It was surprisingly illuminating--most of them never bothered to pick-up a degree and typically they had distinguished themselves as mediocritie sor embarrassments. The closest thing to a success story was Bill Clinton--who turned out to be a mediocre (if sometimes underestimated) president and who had a significant scandal. Vitter seems more typical---a senator from a backwaterish state with an undistinguished record and laughable scandal--indulging a diaper fetish with a female sex worker. According to SPY, the similarly competitive Mellon & Marshall scholarships produce more distinguished individuals (NB: I have a cousin, a classics prof who has had both). So, we should probably think of Vitter as the protypical Rhodie, not some ludicrous exception.

Several comments from Canada.

1) Drug prices are regulated in Canada so the pharmacutical companies get less money, in most but not all cases, than the US. Therefore, when an American buys a drug in Canada instead of US, the financial difference is borne by the RX company