This was originally written, and cross-posted at A Creative Revolution, for a Canadian audience.

A week ago, my toes went numb.  Just a little at first.  I didn't think much of it, maybe a bit of a pinched nerve or something.  I'm on my feet all day, every day, after all.  I made an appointment with our family doctor for the next week, since it was a bit strange that it was in a specific part of both feet.  I mentioned it to some of my co-workers and their response was "you should go to the walk-in clinic".  

There is often a bleat from the drugs companies and their right wing lobbyists that drug prices are high in the USA compared to other countries because of the need to make profits to develop new drugs. The implication of this is that US patients are subsidizing "socialist medicine".

Now there comes a claim that reverses that. Drug prices are higher in Europe because the companies build in part of the cost of advertising in the US market.

In an interview with The Observer on Sunday Professor Sir Michael Rawlins the Chair of the England's National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) made this comment:

'The other thing we have to pay for is the costs of marketing. Marketing costs generally are about twice the spend on research and development.' Advertising to patients was forbidden in Britain, but widespread in the US, and some of that marketing cost was built into European drug prices

The interview has other revealing information on why drug prices are higher than they need to be. Rawlins also had an interesting comment on illegal drugs.

The Constitution is currently pretty shredded.  I'd like to say Bush, Cheney and the rubber-stamp Republicans are solely responsible for this, but the Democrats haven't exactly given us much to cheer about these last two years, either.  One area that the GOP does have sole claim to, however, is using the Constitution as a stage prop, turning the amendment process into political theater.  Gay marriage, flag desecration, abortion, electing Arnold president - the list goes on.  (For a bunch of guys who act like the Constitution is perfect just the way it is, they sure want to change it a lot.)

Before we can fix any of the institutions weakened by the last 8 years, we need to reassert the authority of the Constitution and I have an idea where to start.  Now, I'm sure I'm not the first person to come up with this idea, but I'd like to mention it here and get your comments on it.

<BSG REFERENCE>My board is green...   Jump!</BSG REFERENCE>

In the enthusiasm to introduce as "single payer" or universal healthcare system to the USA it is sometimes forgotten that every such scheme is subject to budget restraints. This will mean that not every procedure will be available to those who might want it.

As an example, like I would presume happens with virtually all insurance companies, it would be difficult to justify a purely cosmetic breast enhancement operation. (Although it should be noted that in most cases breast reconstruction after operations are normally covered within the English NHS as are such operations needed for other reasons such as severe mental health problems.)

To pretend that healthcare is not rationed, either under an insurance company based system like that in the USA or under a universal system is dishonest, even if it is implicitly denied by those who defend the current setup by pointing it out as a negative for a "single payer" system. The difference therefore is who decides whether a treatment is available and how that decision is arrived at. Today there is just such situation for the English and Welsh NHS about four new drugs for cancer that provides a case study for such discussions.

Exxon Ed Whitfield has been trying to clean up his voting record for this election year. He knows it is a bad year for Republicans, and that he has been a shameless enabler of every failed policy of the Bush Administration. All the election year scuffling to clean up his record cannot hide the fact that he has been a constant, bitter opponent to reform of our healthcare system, and of providing equal access to those in poverty as those with wealth to healthcare. Lets look at some of Exxon Eddie's votes to limit the access of healthcare to working Americans.

It's easy for the issues in this election to feel somewhat distant, or only important in a rhetorical way. When someone talks about having friends or family in Iraq, it's easy to miss the scope of such feelings, since that burden is shared by so few in our society. Likewise, with issues ranging from abortion to illegal immigration to social security reform... to universal healthcare.

I must confess, I was among those who took a very distant look at a lot of those issues. From when I first become politically conscious, through being a Republican, and until somewhat recently, I was more concerned about the here and now of my own life- and none of those issues impacted me directly.

It's funny how things change.

Let's assume triangulating Democrats and screaming progressives don't screw it up for us, and Obama is elected the next president.

I feel strangely confident that this will occur.

But it's been widely noted that President Obama will be taking over a wounded nation; by what measure should we judge his ability to lead us towards a brighter future?