By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, August 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Care Reform: A study by the British Patients Association tells the true story about socialized medicine in Britain. It's one of willful and woeful neglect of millions, missed diagnoses, and elderly patients left in pain.
While reading this disturbing analysis of the pitiful state of medical care in Britain in the Daily Telegraph, the Vincent Price horror classic "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" came to mind. Price portrayed a man who used bizarre methods to dispatch his victims.
The abominable British National Health Service, based on this report, is only slightly better.
The Patients Association's primary focus was the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Health Trust, where it was found that up to 1,200 people died through failings in urgent care the past six years. Their analysis was prompted by an avalanche of complaints of shameful care at the hands of the NHS.
Claire Rayner, president of the group and a former nurse, said: "For far too long now, the Patients Association has been receiving calls on our help line from people wanting to talk about the dreadful, neglectful, demeaning, painful and sometimes downright cruel treatment their elderly relatives had experienced at the hands of NHS nurses."
There was the case of 82-year-old piano teacher Pamela Goddard. She was suffering from cancer and was left to suffer in her excrement as her condition deteriorated due to bed sores.
Before Florence Weston died at age 85, she remained without food or water as her scheduled hip replacement operation was repeatedly canceled.
Katherine Murphy, director of the Patients Association, said: "If this was extrapolated to the whole of the NHS from 2002 to 2008 it would equate to over 1 million patients. Very often these are the most vulnerable elderly and terminally ill patients. It is a sad indictment of the care they receive."
Daniel Bates at England's Daily Mail newspaper reported on one of our favorite examples of the glories of socialized medicine. He wrote about Mark Wattson, who after weeks of excruciating pain was happy to get his appendix removed — or so he thought. Doctors told him the operation was a success and sent him home.
Bates wrote: "Only a month later the 35-year-old collapsed in agony and had to be taken back to Great Western Hospital in Swindon by ambulance. To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured — a potentially fatal complication." Oops.
Under the NHS system, according to an analysis by the Rare Cancers Forum printed in the Daily Telegraph, about 1,000 victims of rare forms of cancer were denied drug treatment the past three years. Reason? NHS bureaucrats had not licensed them for their particular form of cancer.
Stella Pendleton, executive director of the charity, said: "The NHS is forcing desperate patients into the cruel situation where the chances of their being given the treatment they need depend on where they live. No patient should be denied a treatment recommended by a doctor simply because the cancer it treats is too rare for the medicine to be licensed."
The Daily Mail reports that thousands of British women are forced to give birth outside maternity wards due to a shortage of midwives and hospital beds. Some 4,000 women last year, up 15% from the year before, were forced to give birth in places ranging from elevators to toilets, putting the lives of mothers and babies at risk.
Meanwhile, it has been reported that up to one-third of health care trusts in Britain are importing doctors from as far away as Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland because of a shortage of doctors willing to work in the evenings and on weekends.
An increasing number of British patients are being treated by exhausted foreign doctors with a poor command of English. Alarms went off after a German doctor brought in with just three hours of sleep had two patients die on his first shift in Britain.
Nigerian-born Dr. Daniel Ubani had just three hours' sleep after traveling from Germany to a shift in Cambridgeshire. He injected 70-year-old kidney patient David Gray with 10 times the recommended dose of morphine, and an 86-year-old woman died of a heart attack after Dr. Ubani failed to send her to a hospital.
Three days after Health Secretary Andrew Burnham falsely claimed on the BBC, "We have no waiting lists now in the NHS, and people have full choice of NHS hospitals," it was revealed that the government's own figures show that 236,316 people are waiting more than 18 weeks for a range of treatments, including oral surgery, rheumatology and basic geriatric medicine.
It's no surprise then to discover that while breast cancer in America has a 25% mortality rate, in Britain it's almost double at 46%. Prostate cancer is fatal to 19% of American men who get it. In Britain it kills 57% of those it strikes. We are not making this up.
These are not cherry-picked stories, but rather daily life under the NHS. In the U.S., trial lawyers would have a field day as demands mounted for such deaths to stop until the system was overhauled.
As we said a week ago, this is what inevitably happens under all forms of socialized medicine.
No wonder that Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament from Britain, has called the NHS a "60-year mistake" and encouraged "Americans to ponder our example and tremble."
When asked about ObamaCare on Fox News, Hannan said: "I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system."
And President Obama says it is our system that's unsustainable. We have seen the future of health care, and it doesn't work.
______________________________________________________________________________
Even the co-ops would eventually lead to the destruction of whatever good still remains of the private sector health insurance. They say that it won't happen. I believe it will. I have seen mounting evidence that supports that outcome.
Either the liberals are fools and really believe the crap they are saying or they are just that ignorant and elitist. Either way its dangerous to this country and whatever is left of our freemarket system. And why should they care anyway? They would never have to go on it. They will always have their special taxpayer funded health insurance, so screw the rest of us.
People thankfully are starting to wake up a bit, but it might just be too little too late. I hope not, but we shall see. I don't want to have to say see I told you so, but in the end I might just end up being able to do just that should these elistist liberals get their way and not just in the healthcare forum either.
One can only hope people continue to have the courage of their convictions. I for one love my country too much to give in now.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Are we loosing our freedoms?
I have heard and seen some things lately that frankly have me very troubled. I am truly afraid we are loosing our personal freedoms. Things like freedom to say what you want (assuming you are not making some sort of terroristic threat)and not face hardship or persecution because of it. While we aren't there yet, I do believe we are on our way down that path. This is frightening to think that in a country such as we live in that things could deteriorate like this. When I hear that there is a draft of a bill that in essence would give the president the right to take over someone personal computer in the event of a "cyber emergency" or that in the house bill for the "healthcare reform" (which its not really) they would have the right to come into my bank and take out money. This begs the question- Is it time to start putting our money in coffee cans like in the days of the depression?How about the comment that Obama made regarding a civilian military type force as equally funded as our military? I saw a video of some kids wearing military camis and black shirts chanting Obama is the messiah and we owe him everything. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What is going on here? Is this a democracy or is this a socialist state in the making or perhaps some sort of hybrid of the two? It's hard to cotemplate either.
The fact that anytime anyone criticizes Obama or the left we are usually painted as extremists or crazy is something that is pretty hard to ignore. Those who dare to voice a dissenting opinion or even dare to ask the hard questions are being persecuted and harassed on a number of levels depending on how outspoken you are and how much in the public eye you are. This just smacks of socialism and the fact that the mainstream press is so fawningly biased toward Obama makes me suspicious, frustrated, and frankly more than a little sick to my stomach. God Bless folks Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Beck. They take a lot of heat for taking the stands against this madness like they do. I just wonder how many more years it will be before we no longer have the right to freely speak our minds?
Perhaps the Lords coming isn't as far off as we might think. I know I may take some derision for saying that, but I guess I am kind of getting used that. I will continue to stand up for what I believe is right and voice my concerns what the because in the end I couldn't live with myself if I didn't. My conscience dictates that I speak out against what I feel is wrong and if that gets me labeled a an extremists or any other label they choose to give me then so be it.
The fact that anytime anyone criticizes Obama or the left we are usually painted as extremists or crazy is something that is pretty hard to ignore. Those who dare to voice a dissenting opinion or even dare to ask the hard questions are being persecuted and harassed on a number of levels depending on how outspoken you are and how much in the public eye you are. This just smacks of socialism and the fact that the mainstream press is so fawningly biased toward Obama makes me suspicious, frustrated, and frankly more than a little sick to my stomach. God Bless folks Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, and Beck. They take a lot of heat for taking the stands against this madness like they do. I just wonder how many more years it will be before we no longer have the right to freely speak our minds?
Perhaps the Lords coming isn't as far off as we might think. I know I may take some derision for saying that, but I guess I am kind of getting used that. I will continue to stand up for what I believe is right and voice my concerns what the because in the end I couldn't live with myself if I didn't. My conscience dictates that I speak out against what I feel is wrong and if that gets me labeled a an extremists or any other label they choose to give me then so be it.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Paying The Price For Illegal Care
Paying The Price For Illegal Care
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Health Care: Democrats are right that uncompensated emergency care for the uninsured is driving up costs. What they don't say is it's illegal immigrants who are bankrupting ERs, and the federal government is encouraging them.
Last decade, the Clinton administration added teeth to a little-known Health and Human Services Department regulation mandating that hospitals provide emergency treatment even to illegals.
Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals can't even ask for a patient's immigration status or ability to pay prior to delivering treatment. They also can't keep such uninsured patients waiting, even if their problem isn't an emergency. Nor can they discharge them until they're fully stabilized and have safe transportation.
More, hospitals must post EMTALA signs in Spanish and English. The law isn't limited to ERs. Hospitals must accept illegals at any facility on campus — including outpatient clinics and doctor's offices — located within 250 yards of the main buildings.
Hospitals end up treating uninsured illegals for the sniffles and other nonurgent care, and pass that exorbitant cost on to the insured, the Government Accountability Office has found. Resulting overcrowding leads to delays in "care for patients with true emergency needs."
This unfunded federal mandate has placed a heavy and unfair financial burden on more than 1,500 hospitals across the country, according to HHS data, costing billions in unpaid bills by some estimates.
Many eat losses and eventually go out of business like they're doing in droves in California, which has seen 85 hospital closures in the last decade. An additional 55 facilities have shut down ERs. The state ranks last in the country in access to emergency care and last in ERs per capita, making it woefully unprepared to respond to a major earthquake or terror attack.
Border hospitals are the hardest-hit. By law, they have to treat even illegals injured while crossing the border. Each year, hundreds of them pour into the ER at El Centro Regional Medical Center near San Diego with fractures sustained while climbing the fence or eluding border patrols in high-speed car chases. Others suffer from multiple organ failures from dehydration.
Many abuse the system with encouragement from groups like Maldef and La Raza, which have spread the word about EMTALA. In Texas, hospitals are flooded with walk-in mothers in labor showing up in the ER to have their anchor babies.Some 80% of the births at Houston's Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital are to illegal immigrants. In Fort Worth, it's about 70%.
At a recent town hall meeting, President Obama shot down tort reform because, as he argued, Texas has tort reform and one of its cities — McAllen — still has "the highest health care costs in the country."
McAllen also is one of the most heavily trafficked border areas in the country, a little fact Obama failed to mention. The border patrol nabs 75,000 illegals there a year. They're the ones caught; others flood McAllen hospitals.
Overutilization of ER services by illegals is crippling the area's major hospital system, including McAllen Medical Center and Edinburg Regional Medical Center. The South Texas Health System eats $140 million a year in free care, and 60%-70% of those unpaid costs are in the ER.Some 40% of the babies born at McAllen Medical last year were to illegals. That's nearly 2,400 babies who were given instant citizenship. And their mothers instantly qualified for U.S. welfare. Many of them, McAllen Medical CEO Joe Riley says, were "mothers about to give birth that walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river and in actual labor."
Actually, Miami boasts the highest medical costs in the country. McAllen is No. 2. Like McAllen, Miami hospitals are overrun by illegal Hispanic immigrants.
Thanks to EMTALA, one hospital near Miami was forced to eat $1.5 million in unreimbursed care for an illegal alien from Guatemala. After three years of treatment, Martin Memorial Medical Center paid $30,000 to charter a jet to take Luis Jimenez to a medical facility in his home country. His family in turn sued the hospital.
Any health care overhaul should start with rewriting EMTALA. No one wants to refuse emergency care to indigent Mexicans who truly need it. But when you consider that they wire an average of $300 a month in remittances back to Mexico, that money could go a long way toward purchasing medical insurance.
At a minimum, the government could impose a fee on remittances to Mexico, and use the revenues to offset costs that border hospitals incur for the care of illegal immigrants.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Health Care: Democrats are right that uncompensated emergency care for the uninsured is driving up costs. What they don't say is it's illegal immigrants who are bankrupting ERs, and the federal government is encouraging them.
Last decade, the Clinton administration added teeth to a little-known Health and Human Services Department regulation mandating that hospitals provide emergency treatment even to illegals.
Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, hospitals can't even ask for a patient's immigration status or ability to pay prior to delivering treatment. They also can't keep such uninsured patients waiting, even if their problem isn't an emergency. Nor can they discharge them until they're fully stabilized and have safe transportation.
More, hospitals must post EMTALA signs in Spanish and English. The law isn't limited to ERs. Hospitals must accept illegals at any facility on campus — including outpatient clinics and doctor's offices — located within 250 yards of the main buildings.
Hospitals end up treating uninsured illegals for the sniffles and other nonurgent care, and pass that exorbitant cost on to the insured, the Government Accountability Office has found. Resulting overcrowding leads to delays in "care for patients with true emergency needs."
This unfunded federal mandate has placed a heavy and unfair financial burden on more than 1,500 hospitals across the country, according to HHS data, costing billions in unpaid bills by some estimates.
Many eat losses and eventually go out of business like they're doing in droves in California, which has seen 85 hospital closures in the last decade. An additional 55 facilities have shut down ERs. The state ranks last in the country in access to emergency care and last in ERs per capita, making it woefully unprepared to respond to a major earthquake or terror attack.
Border hospitals are the hardest-hit. By law, they have to treat even illegals injured while crossing the border. Each year, hundreds of them pour into the ER at El Centro Regional Medical Center near San Diego with fractures sustained while climbing the fence or eluding border patrols in high-speed car chases. Others suffer from multiple organ failures from dehydration.
Many abuse the system with encouragement from groups like Maldef and La Raza, which have spread the word about EMTALA. In Texas, hospitals are flooded with walk-in mothers in labor showing up in the ER to have their anchor babies.Some 80% of the births at Houston's Ben Taub General Hospital and Lyndon B. Johnson General Hospital are to illegal immigrants. In Fort Worth, it's about 70%.
At a recent town hall meeting, President Obama shot down tort reform because, as he argued, Texas has tort reform and one of its cities — McAllen — still has "the highest health care costs in the country."
McAllen also is one of the most heavily trafficked border areas in the country, a little fact Obama failed to mention. The border patrol nabs 75,000 illegals there a year. They're the ones caught; others flood McAllen hospitals.
Overutilization of ER services by illegals is crippling the area's major hospital system, including McAllen Medical Center and Edinburg Regional Medical Center. The South Texas Health System eats $140 million a year in free care, and 60%-70% of those unpaid costs are in the ER.Some 40% of the babies born at McAllen Medical last year were to illegals. That's nearly 2,400 babies who were given instant citizenship. And their mothers instantly qualified for U.S. welfare. Many of them, McAllen Medical CEO Joe Riley says, were "mothers about to give birth that walk up to the hospital still wet from swimming across the river and in actual labor."
Actually, Miami boasts the highest medical costs in the country. McAllen is No. 2. Like McAllen, Miami hospitals are overrun by illegal Hispanic immigrants.
Thanks to EMTALA, one hospital near Miami was forced to eat $1.5 million in unreimbursed care for an illegal alien from Guatemala. After three years of treatment, Martin Memorial Medical Center paid $30,000 to charter a jet to take Luis Jimenez to a medical facility in his home country. His family in turn sued the hospital.
Any health care overhaul should start with rewriting EMTALA. No one wants to refuse emergency care to indigent Mexicans who truly need it. But when you consider that they wire an average of $300 a month in remittances back to Mexico, that money could go a long way toward purchasing medical insurance.
At a minimum, the government could impose a fee on remittances to Mexico, and use the revenues to offset costs that border hospitals incur for the care of illegal immigrants.
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Free Speech And Yoo plus my two cents worth.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Law: "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism," those on the left were fond of saying when President Bush was in office. Today, with a Democratic president in power, we're finding out what a cynical pose that is.
That can be seen in the sad case of John Yoo, a brilliant law professor from the University of California at Berkeley known for his staunch support of the Constitution.
Yoo, working for the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, allegedly wrote what the left absurdly calls the "torture memos," which justified the kind of tough, coercive interrogations the military used to break up a number of terrorist plots after 9/11.
Yoo runs the gantlet at Berkeley.
Yet today, for rendering his honest legal opinion to President Bush, Yoo finds himself vilified and attacked by the left — with loud calls for Berkeley's Boalt Hall Law School to fire him.
The campaign of harassment and intimidation against Yoo is sickening. Yoo and his family have been verbally assaulted, spat upon and threatened.
On Monday, returning to school, he was met with shouts of "war criminal" by "war protesters" — those who yelled similar things at President Bush but who now under a Democrat utter nary a peep of protest.
Yoo's case shows how those on the extreme left deal with free speech that isn't their own. As blogger Andrew Breitbart noted, it comes straight out of radical organizer Saul Alinsky's playbook: "Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Change the target from right to left, and you'd have a phalanx of ACLU lawyers coming to his defense. Left-leaning think tanks, always keen to support "civil rights," would take up the cudgel.
Not this time. Berkeley law school dean Christopher Edley Jr. rejected calls to fire Yoo, but his reason was pathetic. The university, he said, didn't have the resources to investigate Yoo's work fully.
Memo to Edley: Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly gives the president the right to "require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices . . ."
It seems clear that Yoo is covered. Maybe the federal judge who recently ruled Yoo could be sued for his legal opinions by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla should also actually read the Constitution.
Sadly, Yoo isn't the only recent target of hatred and intolerance of any opposition to the left's far-reaching agenda.
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey incurred its wrath by suggesting a massive government takeover of health care was a bad idea. Now, for Mackey's apostasy from liberal orthodoxy, the left is organizing a nationwide boycott of his grocery chain.
This is how the left works these days. It's a sad state of affairs when those who make the greatest claims of constitutional rights for their own behavior are the least willing to grant them
__________________________________________________________________________________
I have some words to say on this matter. I am deeply troubled by how much truth I really do see in what this author is saying. I wish it weren't true, but it is. It is ironic to me how hypocritical the far left has become when it comes to certain issues, this is one those issues. They championed the protesters when it was they who were out of power, no matter how unruly and nasty the protests were. Trust me when I say some of them seemed pretty nasty and more like the angry mob that the frustrated citizens voicing their concern of late over "healthcare reform" ever have. Why is it OK for people to burn effigies of Bush, to scream and yell and chant, to spit on people and get truly violent physically with them? But when concerned citizens most of whom are guilty of nothing more than some yelling and in some cases no more than a few pointed direct questions- respectfully but forcefully asked- try to make their voices heard, they are threatened and bullied and at best ignored. So community organizing is only OK when it's the lefts opinion that is being heard, but not anyone else's?
I am not saying there are those on the right that haven't stepped over the line at times or that the right is perfect- they are far from it. What I am saying is that free speech really does seem to be a one way street these days and that is just scary to me. It goes beyond party lines. It goes to one of the core values that made this country great- the right to say what we think and be well and truly heard, not threatened and vilified.
You don't have to have liked Bush or even have agreed with him to understand what I am saying and to see the truth in my words. Free speech is in jeopardy and it is up to those of us who still know how to respectfully disagree with each other and not get nasty about it to change this turn of events. I am guilty myself sometimes of getting a little to vehement with my opinions and I am working on that, but I wont apologize for disagreeing with the far left on most issues and will defend to the death the right to do so, hopefully without fear of being punished for it in the end.
We all on the left and the right and in the middle (lol) need to take a stand and say no more. Let's talk about it, but let it be a two way street and let it be civilized. What say you? I'm game.
That can be seen in the sad case of John Yoo, a brilliant law professor from the University of California at Berkeley known for his staunch support of the Constitution.
Yoo, working for the Justice Department from 2001 to 2003, allegedly wrote what the left absurdly calls the "torture memos," which justified the kind of tough, coercive interrogations the military used to break up a number of terrorist plots after 9/11.
Yoo runs the gantlet at Berkeley.
Yet today, for rendering his honest legal opinion to President Bush, Yoo finds himself vilified and attacked by the left — with loud calls for Berkeley's Boalt Hall Law School to fire him.
The campaign of harassment and intimidation against Yoo is sickening. Yoo and his family have been verbally assaulted, spat upon and threatened.
On Monday, returning to school, he was met with shouts of "war criminal" by "war protesters" — those who yelled similar things at President Bush but who now under a Democrat utter nary a peep of protest.
Yoo's case shows how those on the extreme left deal with free speech that isn't their own. As blogger Andrew Breitbart noted, it comes straight out of radical organizer Saul Alinsky's playbook: "Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."
Change the target from right to left, and you'd have a phalanx of ACLU lawyers coming to his defense. Left-leaning think tanks, always keen to support "civil rights," would take up the cudgel.
Not this time. Berkeley law school dean Christopher Edley Jr. rejected calls to fire Yoo, but his reason was pathetic. The university, he said, didn't have the resources to investigate Yoo's work fully.
Memo to Edley: Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution explicitly gives the president the right to "require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices . . ."
It seems clear that Yoo is covered. Maybe the federal judge who recently ruled Yoo could be sued for his legal opinions by convicted terrorist Jose Padilla should also actually read the Constitution.
Sadly, Yoo isn't the only recent target of hatred and intolerance of any opposition to the left's far-reaching agenda.
Whole Foods CEO John Mackey incurred its wrath by suggesting a massive government takeover of health care was a bad idea. Now, for Mackey's apostasy from liberal orthodoxy, the left is organizing a nationwide boycott of his grocery chain.
This is how the left works these days. It's a sad state of affairs when those who make the greatest claims of constitutional rights for their own behavior are the least willing to grant them
__________________________________________________________________________________
I have some words to say on this matter. I am deeply troubled by how much truth I really do see in what this author is saying. I wish it weren't true, but it is. It is ironic to me how hypocritical the far left has become when it comes to certain issues, this is one those issues. They championed the protesters when it was they who were out of power, no matter how unruly and nasty the protests were. Trust me when I say some of them seemed pretty nasty and more like the angry mob that the frustrated citizens voicing their concern of late over "healthcare reform" ever have. Why is it OK for people to burn effigies of Bush, to scream and yell and chant, to spit on people and get truly violent physically with them? But when concerned citizens most of whom are guilty of nothing more than some yelling and in some cases no more than a few pointed direct questions- respectfully but forcefully asked- try to make their voices heard, they are threatened and bullied and at best ignored. So community organizing is only OK when it's the lefts opinion that is being heard, but not anyone else's?
I am not saying there are those on the right that haven't stepped over the line at times or that the right is perfect- they are far from it. What I am saying is that free speech really does seem to be a one way street these days and that is just scary to me. It goes beyond party lines. It goes to one of the core values that made this country great- the right to say what we think and be well and truly heard, not threatened and vilified.
You don't have to have liked Bush or even have agreed with him to understand what I am saying and to see the truth in my words. Free speech is in jeopardy and it is up to those of us who still know how to respectfully disagree with each other and not get nasty about it to change this turn of events. I am guilty myself sometimes of getting a little to vehement with my opinions and I am working on that, but I wont apologize for disagreeing with the far left on most issues and will defend to the death the right to do so, hopefully without fear of being punished for it in the end.
We all on the left and the right and in the middle (lol) need to take a stand and say no more. Let's talk about it, but let it be a two way street and let it be civilized. What say you? I'm game.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Can the government run healthcare better than us?
Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who is co-chairman of the Middle Class Caucus, said that "leaving private insurance companies the job of controlling the costs of health care is like making a pyromaniac the fire chief."
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
________________________________________________________________________________
My thoughts to those comments are as follows. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I would trust the private market place to do the right thing many times more than I would the government no matter whose running it, but especially now. They want the government in control of everything because they believe they can do better than us (the private marketplace). It goes to their elitits belief that they are better and smarter than us and they have no faith in Capitalism or the freemarket.
Would they manage healthcare the same way they have social security or the post office or even medicare? If so then we are all screwed. They mess up everything they touch. They end up being mismanaged, disorganized, rampent fraud in some cases, and overpriced. And you want these masters of organization and cost managment in charge of your healthcare? ARE YOU CRAZY??????
Think about it folks. Just think about it ok? Tort reform would be a much better start at healthcare reform than what they are doing. Thats just my two cents worth.
"I think there will be a competitor to private insurers," Sebelius said. "That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."
________________________________________________________________________________
My thoughts to those comments are as follows. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I would trust the private market place to do the right thing many times more than I would the government no matter whose running it, but especially now. They want the government in control of everything because they believe they can do better than us (the private marketplace). It goes to their elitits belief that they are better and smarter than us and they have no faith in Capitalism or the freemarket.
Would they manage healthcare the same way they have social security or the post office or even medicare? If so then we are all screwed. They mess up everything they touch. They end up being mismanaged, disorganized, rampent fraud in some cases, and overpriced. And you want these masters of organization and cost managment in charge of your healthcare? ARE YOU CRAZY??????
Think about it folks. Just think about it ok? Tort reform would be a much better start at healthcare reform than what they are doing. Thats just my two cents worth.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Will Electric Cars Crash The Grid?
Will Electric Cars Crash The Grid?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Conservation: The Chevy Volt is said to be able to get 230 miles per gallon. That's if it's continually plugged into a fragile and overburdened power grid. Where will you be when the lights go out?
The folks at GM, now affectionately known as Government Motors, have made this astounding claim. Before you drive one off the lot, you should read the fine print. Chevrolet's caveat is that this assumes "a Volt driver (will) plug into the electric grid once each day" to get "40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving."
That depends on where you live, according to Adam Victor, president of TransGas Energy, who has been fighting with the city of New York and its resident Nimbys to build an environmentally friendly natural gas cogeneration facility in Brooklyn to generate electricity these cars might plug into.
Writing in the New York Post, he notes that in much of the nation, particularly in flyover country, many utilities use heavy fuel oil to generate that electricity. So the more electric cars you plug into the grid, we may actually be increasing pollution and carbon emissions by using oil that's not included in miles-per-gallon computations.
As Victor puts it, "If a few thousand well-meaning dupes plug a few thousand new Chevy Volts into electrical outlets (especially in urban centers), you could actually add millions of pounds of dangerous, dirty unregulated pollution and carbon into the air we breathe — possibly more pollution than would be offset by putting the Volts on the road."
Since most U.S. electricity generation is not carbon-free, the Congressional Research Service agrees. The "widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid vehicles through 2030 may have only a small effect on, and might actually increase, carbon emissions," it observes.
Also not included in these mpg calculations is the coal used to generate much of this electricity. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office says the move to electric cars may only shift the problem somewhere else. That's why we have called them elsewhere-emission vehicles.
"If you are using coal-fired power plants and half the country's electricity comes from coal powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy."
Nuclear power would solve the elsewhere-emission problem. But with the administration shutting down the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada where spent fuel was supposed to be stored, we have one more impediment to building a nuclear plant.
Wind? Solar? Geothermal? These non-fossil fuel sources generate less than 1% of U.S. electricity and work only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. They also have their own environmental drawbacks.
And where do you put all the wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines required? A 2007 MIT report says that a reliance on bio fuels, another renewable, would displace so much cropland that the U.S. would have to become a "substantial agricultural importer."
TransGas' Victor, a New Yorker, is familiar with brownouts and blackouts. After decades of refusing to build nuclear power plants or clean facilities such as the one he proposes, does the system have enough capacity?
He wonders if the electrical grid can handle even a few thousand Chevy Volts. He warns that adding them to "a growing list of devices that need to be plugged in will put a major strain on an already flimsy electrical supply and distribution infrastructure."
As with any mileage rating, it depends to a certain extent on how you drive your car. It may give you 40 miles of gas-free driving, but after that you must either plug it in again or use gas to run the car and recharge the battery.
What happens to a plug-in hybrid in a brownout or blackout is anyone's guess. Just be sure to keep that gas can ready.
_____________________________________________________________________________
If the enviromental wackos would think about things a little more seriously they might see that some of their ideas such as the electric car, while a noble intention, are flawed at best and economically disasterous at worst.
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Conservation: The Chevy Volt is said to be able to get 230 miles per gallon. That's if it's continually plugged into a fragile and overburdened power grid. Where will you be when the lights go out?
The folks at GM, now affectionately known as Government Motors, have made this astounding claim. Before you drive one off the lot, you should read the fine print. Chevrolet's caveat is that this assumes "a Volt driver (will) plug into the electric grid once each day" to get "40 miles of electric-only, petroleum-free driving."
That depends on where you live, according to Adam Victor, president of TransGas Energy, who has been fighting with the city of New York and its resident Nimbys to build an environmentally friendly natural gas cogeneration facility in Brooklyn to generate electricity these cars might plug into.
Writing in the New York Post, he notes that in much of the nation, particularly in flyover country, many utilities use heavy fuel oil to generate that electricity. So the more electric cars you plug into the grid, we may actually be increasing pollution and carbon emissions by using oil that's not included in miles-per-gallon computations.
As Victor puts it, "If a few thousand well-meaning dupes plug a few thousand new Chevy Volts into electrical outlets (especially in urban centers), you could actually add millions of pounds of dangerous, dirty unregulated pollution and carbon into the air we breathe — possibly more pollution than would be offset by putting the Volts on the road."
Since most U.S. electricity generation is not carbon-free, the Congressional Research Service agrees. The "widespread adoption of plug-in hybrid vehicles through 2030 may have only a small effect on, and might actually increase, carbon emissions," it observes.
Also not included in these mpg calculations is the coal used to generate much of this electricity. A recent report by the Government Accountability Office says the move to electric cars may only shift the problem somewhere else. That's why we have called them elsewhere-emission vehicles.
"If you are using coal-fired power plants and half the country's electricity comes from coal powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?" asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report notes: "Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy."
Nuclear power would solve the elsewhere-emission problem. But with the administration shutting down the Yucca Mountain facility in Nevada where spent fuel was supposed to be stored, we have one more impediment to building a nuclear plant.
Wind? Solar? Geothermal? These non-fossil fuel sources generate less than 1% of U.S. electricity and work only when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. They also have their own environmental drawbacks.
And where do you put all the wind turbines, solar panels and transmission lines required? A 2007 MIT report says that a reliance on bio fuels, another renewable, would displace so much cropland that the U.S. would have to become a "substantial agricultural importer."
TransGas' Victor, a New Yorker, is familiar with brownouts and blackouts. After decades of refusing to build nuclear power plants or clean facilities such as the one he proposes, does the system have enough capacity?
He wonders if the electrical grid can handle even a few thousand Chevy Volts. He warns that adding them to "a growing list of devices that need to be plugged in will put a major strain on an already flimsy electrical supply and distribution infrastructure."
As with any mileage rating, it depends to a certain extent on how you drive your car. It may give you 40 miles of gas-free driving, but after that you must either plug it in again or use gas to run the car and recharge the battery.
What happens to a plug-in hybrid in a brownout or blackout is anyone's guess. Just be sure to keep that gas can ready.
_____________________________________________________________________________
If the enviromental wackos would think about things a little more seriously they might see that some of their ideas such as the electric car, while a noble intention, are flawed at best and economically disasterous at worst.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
If only more people would adopt even a few of these attitudes, if only.
The 9/12
The 9 Principles
1. America Is Good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson
The 12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude
The 9 Principles
1. America Is Good.
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
God “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained.” from George Washington’s first Inaugural address.
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
Honesty “I hope that I shall always possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider to be the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man.” George Washington
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
Marriage/Family “It is in the love of one’s family only that heartfelt happiness is known. By a law of our nature, we cannot be happy without the endearing connections of a family.” Thomas Jefferson
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
Justice “I deem one of the essential principles of our government… equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political.” Thomas Jefferson
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
Life, Liberty, & The Pursuit of Happiness “Everyone has a natural right to choose that vocation in life which he thinks most likely to give him comfortable subsistence.” Thomas Jefferson
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
Charity “It is not everyone who asketh that deserveth charity; all however, are worth of the inquiry or the deserving may suffer.” George Washington
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
On your right to disagree “In a free and republican government, you cannot restrain the voice of the multitude; every man will speak as he thinks, or more properly without thinking.” George Washington
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
Who works for whom? “I consider the people who constitute a society or a nation as the source of all authority in that nation.” Thomas Jefferson
The 12 Values
* Honesty
* Reverence
* Hope
* Thrift
* Humility
* Charity
* Sincerity
* Moderation
* Hard Work
* Courage
* Personal Responsibility
* Gratitude
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Third World Care? By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
(This is exactly why I dont want a public option, which would lead to socialized medicene)
Reform: Buffeted by growing outrage that ObamaCare will ruin quality medical care in America, a top administration official has resorted to telling desperate lies.
'Frankly," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a recent meeting of AFL-CIO leaders, "the health delivery system is under-delivering in terms of quality of care. We spend over twice as much as any nation on earth, and our health results look like we're a developing country."
Tell that to all the princes and potentates from developing countries who flock to America for lifesaving treatment. Saudi billionaires could go anywhere in the world to cure what ails them, but they check into the Mayo Clinic or the Texas Medical Center.
And poll after poll shows Americans are much more satisfied with the quality of their care than their counterparts in industrialized countries with government-run health care.
More than 70% of adults in countries with government-controlled health care — Britain, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, as well as Canada — complain that their systems need either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
That's because they wait longer for treatment and die sooner than Americans from common cancers and other diseases, according to a study by Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
Consider breast cancer mortality, which is 88% higher in Britain and 9% higher in Canada. Or prostate cancer mortality, which is 604% higher in Britain and 184% higher in Canada.
We have better cancer survival rates not only because we have better treatment, but because we have earlier detection. And we have earlier detection because we have better access to tests that screen for cancer.
For example, almost 90% of middle-aged U.S. women have had a mammogram, compared with 72% of Canadians; more than half of U.S. men — 54% — have had a prostate-specific antigen test, while only 16% of Canadians have had a PSA, and fully 30% of Americans have had a colonoscopy — the procedure for detecting colon cancer — compared with 5% of Canadians.
We also spend less time waiting for care. In fact, Canadians and Britons "wait about twice as long — sometimes more than a year — to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer," Atlas found.
Access to lifesaving drugs is also better in the U.S. Some 56% of Americans take statin drugs that reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, compared with 36% of Dutch, 29% of Swiss, 23% of Britons and 17% of Italians.
Finally, we have better access to critical diagnostic equipment. The U.S. has 34 CT scanners per million people vs. 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. And we operate 27 MRI machines per million compared with six per million in Canada and Britain.
The U.S. medical industry is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations in the world. It's no coincidence that since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to Americans more often than recipients from all other countries combined.
America decidedly does not have a Third World health care system. But it will if Washington takes control of it.
Reform: Buffeted by growing outrage that ObamaCare will ruin quality medical care in America, a top administration official has resorted to telling desperate lies.
'Frankly," HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a recent meeting of AFL-CIO leaders, "the health delivery system is under-delivering in terms of quality of care. We spend over twice as much as any nation on earth, and our health results look like we're a developing country."
Tell that to all the princes and potentates from developing countries who flock to America for lifesaving treatment. Saudi billionaires could go anywhere in the world to cure what ails them, but they check into the Mayo Clinic or the Texas Medical Center.
And poll after poll shows Americans are much more satisfied with the quality of their care than their counterparts in industrialized countries with government-run health care.
More than 70% of adults in countries with government-controlled health care — Britain, Germany, Australia and New Zealand, as well as Canada — complain that their systems need either "fundamental change" or "complete rebuilding."
That's because they wait longer for treatment and die sooner than Americans from common cancers and other diseases, according to a study by Dr. Scott W. Atlas, a Hoover Institution senior fellow and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Center.
Consider breast cancer mortality, which is 88% higher in Britain and 9% higher in Canada. Or prostate cancer mortality, which is 604% higher in Britain and 184% higher in Canada.
We have better cancer survival rates not only because we have better treatment, but because we have earlier detection. And we have earlier detection because we have better access to tests that screen for cancer.
For example, almost 90% of middle-aged U.S. women have had a mammogram, compared with 72% of Canadians; more than half of U.S. men — 54% — have had a prostate-specific antigen test, while only 16% of Canadians have had a PSA, and fully 30% of Americans have had a colonoscopy — the procedure for detecting colon cancer — compared with 5% of Canadians.
We also spend less time waiting for care. In fact, Canadians and Britons "wait about twice as long — sometimes more than a year — to see a specialist, have elective surgery such as hip replacements, or get radiation treatment for cancer," Atlas found.
Access to lifesaving drugs is also better in the U.S. Some 56% of Americans take statin drugs that reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease, compared with 36% of Dutch, 29% of Swiss, 23% of Britons and 17% of Italians.
Finally, we have better access to critical diagnostic equipment. The U.S. has 34 CT scanners per million people vs. 12 in Canada and eight in Britain. And we operate 27 MRI machines per million compared with six per million in Canada and Britain.
The U.S. medical industry is responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations in the world. It's no coincidence that since the mid-1970s, the Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology has gone to Americans more often than recipients from all other countries combined.
America decidedly does not have a Third World health care system. But it will if Washington takes control of it.
How End-Users Suffer Under Socialism- By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
(This article pretty much says it all)
Economic Systems: If you ever wonder why we so resist socialism, consider the latest news out of that collectivist island paradise known as Cuba.
Central planners announced this week that they were fresh out of money to buy toilet paper — yes, toilet paper — for the island's 9 million citizens. But not to worry. A nameless official for state-run monopoly Cimex and quoted by Reuters assured that "the corporation has taken all the steps so that at the end of the year there will be an important importation of toilet paper."
The predicament would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. But toilet tissue is hardly the only item Cuba is lacking. Food itself is in short supply, with red bean and chickpea rations cut by a third, according to the Miami Herald. Special hard-currency-only stores for the elites have mysteriously failed to open after last week's "inventory," with no explanation given.
There's no gas, either. The Associated Press this week reported that state planners have decreed that oxen — yes, oxen — would replace tractors in the fields, a bid to conserve fuel. This, despite the fact that Cuba gets 100,000 barrels of oil a day from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela — effectively free, because Cuba never pays its bills.
But again, not to worry: Cuban socialists say the ox represents progress because it's so eco-friendly.
As these examples of Cuban progress roll in, CNN is presenting Cuba's socialized health care system as "a model for health care reform in the United States," according to a report on the cable network last week. The report credits low cost and universal coverage.
"How does Cuba do it?" gushed the CNN anchor. "First of all, the government dictates salaries. Doctors earn less than $30 per month — very little compared to doctors elsewhere. And priority is given to avoiding expensive procedures, says Gail Reed (a contributor to the Cuban communist party propaganda organ Granma), who's lived and worked in Cuba for decades."
But instead of pluses, these features are at the root of why the Cuban system is not a model. Government-dictated salaries — like Medicare payments here — reduce incentives for doctors to provide quality care. And when cheap procedures are a priority — as they are, say, in the U.K. — teeth get pulled instead of filled. But the basic problem with socialism is that there's literally nothing there.
CNN gives little attention to the fact that hospitals in Cuba have no Band-Aids and are short on aspirin and actual medicine. Photos from TheRealCuba.com show hospitals strewn with filthy mattresses, infested with cockroaches and full of bony patients nursing ugly bedsores. The only plenty within Cuba's universal coverage system is one of want.
The scary thing is that if you copy that system, the same shortages appear. Take Venezuela, which is following the socialist model and now suffers shortages of milk, meat, steel, gasoline and tires. (Yes, it too had a run on toilet paper a few years back.)
This week, the country crossed its first milestone for socialist street cred. It was forced for the first time in its history to import a crop it has grown exquisitely well since 1730: coffee.
The problem with the telltale shortages in Cuba isn't a few incompetents at a state-owned toilet-paper company or some hurricane that's wiped out its crops. Nor is it the U.S. trade embargo of which the country constantly complains.
"The system itself is dysfunctional," explains Brian Latell, a leading expert on Cuba at the University of Miami. "Workers have scarcely any incentive to be productive. The distribution and transportation systems have broken down."
Even with slight improvements from the newer Raul Castro administration, "it's a centrally planned economy and still highly centralized. There's little private enterprise and initiative."
The shortages are a natural byproduct of central planning, price-fixing and a system that disregards human nature.
Yes, four hurricanes did damage estimated at $10 billion last year, Latell acknowledges. But Cuba has also been a bad credit risk for nearly 50 years, he adds, limiting its own access to credit out of loathing for capitalism. That has cut into the nation's productive capacity, which was once one of Latin America's highest.
Now, "they're not producing anything to speak of to earn hard currency, they're not exporting to earn, and the economy is in a terrible state," Latell says.
An economic system that can't supply its people with commodities as basic as toilet paper is no model for anyone.
Economic Systems: If you ever wonder why we so resist socialism, consider the latest news out of that collectivist island paradise known as Cuba.
Central planners announced this week that they were fresh out of money to buy toilet paper — yes, toilet paper — for the island's 9 million citizens. But not to worry. A nameless official for state-run monopoly Cimex and quoted by Reuters assured that "the corporation has taken all the steps so that at the end of the year there will be an important importation of toilet paper."
The predicament would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic. But toilet tissue is hardly the only item Cuba is lacking. Food itself is in short supply, with red bean and chickpea rations cut by a third, according to the Miami Herald. Special hard-currency-only stores for the elites have mysteriously failed to open after last week's "inventory," with no explanation given.
There's no gas, either. The Associated Press this week reported that state planners have decreed that oxen — yes, oxen — would replace tractors in the fields, a bid to conserve fuel. This, despite the fact that Cuba gets 100,000 barrels of oil a day from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela — effectively free, because Cuba never pays its bills.
But again, not to worry: Cuban socialists say the ox represents progress because it's so eco-friendly.
As these examples of Cuban progress roll in, CNN is presenting Cuba's socialized health care system as "a model for health care reform in the United States," according to a report on the cable network last week. The report credits low cost and universal coverage.
"How does Cuba do it?" gushed the CNN anchor. "First of all, the government dictates salaries. Doctors earn less than $30 per month — very little compared to doctors elsewhere. And priority is given to avoiding expensive procedures, says Gail Reed (a contributor to the Cuban communist party propaganda organ Granma), who's lived and worked in Cuba for decades."
But instead of pluses, these features are at the root of why the Cuban system is not a model. Government-dictated salaries — like Medicare payments here — reduce incentives for doctors to provide quality care. And when cheap procedures are a priority — as they are, say, in the U.K. — teeth get pulled instead of filled. But the basic problem with socialism is that there's literally nothing there.
CNN gives little attention to the fact that hospitals in Cuba have no Band-Aids and are short on aspirin and actual medicine. Photos from TheRealCuba.com show hospitals strewn with filthy mattresses, infested with cockroaches and full of bony patients nursing ugly bedsores. The only plenty within Cuba's universal coverage system is one of want.
The scary thing is that if you copy that system, the same shortages appear. Take Venezuela, which is following the socialist model and now suffers shortages of milk, meat, steel, gasoline and tires. (Yes, it too had a run on toilet paper a few years back.)
This week, the country crossed its first milestone for socialist street cred. It was forced for the first time in its history to import a crop it has grown exquisitely well since 1730: coffee.
The problem with the telltale shortages in Cuba isn't a few incompetents at a state-owned toilet-paper company or some hurricane that's wiped out its crops. Nor is it the U.S. trade embargo of which the country constantly complains.
"The system itself is dysfunctional," explains Brian Latell, a leading expert on Cuba at the University of Miami. "Workers have scarcely any incentive to be productive. The distribution and transportation systems have broken down."
Even with slight improvements from the newer Raul Castro administration, "it's a centrally planned economy and still highly centralized. There's little private enterprise and initiative."
The shortages are a natural byproduct of central planning, price-fixing and a system that disregards human nature.
Yes, four hurricanes did damage estimated at $10 billion last year, Latell acknowledges. But Cuba has also been a bad credit risk for nearly 50 years, he adds, limiting its own access to credit out of loathing for capitalism. That has cut into the nation's productive capacity, which was once one of Latin America's highest.
Now, "they're not producing anything to speak of to earn hard currency, they're not exporting to earn, and the economy is in a terrible state," Latell says.
An economic system that can't supply its people with commodities as basic as toilet paper is no model for anyone.
Town Bull- by IBD. This is worth repeating.
Health Care: To combat this summer's "town hells," President Obama is holding his own gatherings. But his "town halls" consist of long speeches, falsifications and no questions from the skeptical.
"I have not said that I was a 'single payer' supporter," the president claimed in answer to a question at Portsmouth High School in New Hampshire on Tuesday.That's kind of like Ronald Reagan claiming he was never a movie star. Or Richard Nixon claiming he never installed a tape-recording system in the White House.
Americans have seen the YouTube clip of the president telling the AFL-CIO in 2003 that he was "a proponent of single-payer universal health care coverage . . . that's what I'd like to see."
So why can't the president admit publicly that he was once enthusiastically for a government-run system excluding private plans?
Could it be, as many suspect, that he still is "a proponent of single-payer"? But since Americans won't swallow socialized medicine whole, is he settling for a big first step, including a "public option," that will lead, down the road, to a second wave of radical reform next time there's a panic?
Skyrocketing costs from tens of millions of people added to the rolls — compounded by costly new regulations for private insurers — could itself cause panic. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., thinks so, remarking last month, "I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer, and that's the best way to reach single-payer."
But the only reason the president gave for opposing single-payer pertained to transition: It would be "too disruptive" to have people "go into an entirely new system that had not been fully set up yet." It's not assuring.
The president's response to the fears of independent health experts like the Lewin Group about a public option destroying the private health insurance industry didn't inspire confidence, either. Before a packed New Hampshire venue, he said: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
The U.S. Postal Service would have gone the way of the pterodactyl long ago if UPS, FedEx and other private firms were allowed to compete on a level playing field, in their case with access to residential mailboxes for letter delivery. The obvious lesson: Government never plays fair when it competes with private industry.
But that was never discussed with frankness. After a supporter introduced him with quivering voice, the president began his "town hall" with a long speech. Some 35 minutes into the gathering — filled with thousands of chanting supporters — he had taken just two questions, one from a Democratic member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives who accused Republicans of being "unreasonable," and another from a little girl asking about "a lot of signs outside saying mean things."
If the president's health care revolution scheme was not running into some serious trouble, and if he thought what he has up his sleeve could withstand public scrutiny, he would have taken some questions from those outside Tuesday's lovefest who were holding up those signs. He didn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and any of this is suprising? It shouldn't be. It isn't to me. I saw all this coming a long time ago. Too bad some folks are just now waking up. It's a little late now.
"I have not said that I was a 'single payer' supporter," the president claimed in answer to a question at Portsmouth High School in New Hampshire on Tuesday.That's kind of like Ronald Reagan claiming he was never a movie star. Or Richard Nixon claiming he never installed a tape-recording system in the White House.
Americans have seen the YouTube clip of the president telling the AFL-CIO in 2003 that he was "a proponent of single-payer universal health care coverage . . . that's what I'd like to see."
So why can't the president admit publicly that he was once enthusiastically for a government-run system excluding private plans?
Could it be, as many suspect, that he still is "a proponent of single-payer"? But since Americans won't swallow socialized medicine whole, is he settling for a big first step, including a "public option," that will lead, down the road, to a second wave of radical reform next time there's a panic?
Skyrocketing costs from tens of millions of people added to the rolls — compounded by costly new regulations for private insurers — could itself cause panic. Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., thinks so, remarking last month, "I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer, and that's the best way to reach single-payer."
But the only reason the president gave for opposing single-payer pertained to transition: It would be "too disruptive" to have people "go into an entirely new system that had not been fully set up yet." It's not assuring.
The president's response to the fears of independent health experts like the Lewin Group about a public option destroying the private health insurance industry didn't inspire confidence, either. Before a packed New Hampshire venue, he said: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."
The U.S. Postal Service would have gone the way of the pterodactyl long ago if UPS, FedEx and other private firms were allowed to compete on a level playing field, in their case with access to residential mailboxes for letter delivery. The obvious lesson: Government never plays fair when it competes with private industry.
But that was never discussed with frankness. After a supporter introduced him with quivering voice, the president began his "town hall" with a long speech. Some 35 minutes into the gathering — filled with thousands of chanting supporters — he had taken just two questions, one from a Democratic member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives who accused Republicans of being "unreasonable," and another from a little girl asking about "a lot of signs outside saying mean things."
If the president's health care revolution scheme was not running into some serious trouble, and if he thought what he has up his sleeve could withstand public scrutiny, he would have taken some questions from those outside Tuesday's lovefest who were holding up those signs. He didn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and any of this is suprising? It shouldn't be. It isn't to me. I saw all this coming a long time ago. Too bad some folks are just now waking up. It's a little late now.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Real AstroTurf By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY , plus my own comments
Free Speech: The White House and Congress claim the anti-ObamaCare uprising is artificially organized. But the violent — even racist — union counterattacks, urged on by Democrats, are the real Rent-a-Mobs.
Newsweek columnist and TV pundit Eleanor Clift last week gave her Democratic friends a warning: "Unless Obama and his surrogates find the language to reassure the majority of Americans with health insurance that they will be better off under his reform plan, the AstroTurf opposition we see playing out now on our TV screens could morph into the real thing."
Clift is right to warn that the president's plans for a health care revolution in America are in political peril, but notice her self-contradictory description of the current populist revolt. If those many millions of Americans happy with their health insurance are unconvinced that ObamaCare will make things better for them, doesn't that suggest that the widespread opposition we're seeing this summer already is "the real thing"?
They've heard what's being planned. They know that the president's promise that they can keep their present coverage will mean little when the government-run "marketplaces" start dictating private insurers' coverage, killing who knows how many current plans and giving employers the incentive to stop offering medical insurance altogether.
They've heard about Section 1233 of the House health care bill, in which the federal government will "recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations," as the Washington Post's Charles Lane described it last week, adding: "You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach."
You also don't have to be goaded on by insurance companies or talk radio hosts to express your worries to politicians at town halls.
Indeed, it is the opposition to this opposition that is aggressively and meticulously organized. White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina last week gave the order to "push back twice as hard."
And the national field director of the union-backed Health Care for America Now (HCAN) on Aug. 4 apparently sent out a four-page, single-spaced, 2,500-word-plus "how to bully" memo.
The document, featured on the Talking Points Memo Web site, says "it's important that you take away right-wingers' opportunities to talk with reporters." It tells operatives to "confiscate signs or leaflets" of those opposing ObamaCare. It adds: "Make sure that you assign marshals to take care of moving the crowd."
Human Events recently exposed a memo from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating that congressional Democratic leaders and the White House are "working in close coordination with" HCAN and other union-backed groups in organizing a pro-ObamaCare PR blitz this month.
The White House-ordered push-back has extended even to racist violence. Thugs at Rep. Russ Carnahan's St. Louis town hall meeting last week beat and knocked down a black man, Kenneth Gladney. One called him the N-word, according to Gladney — all because he was distributing "Don't Tread On Me" flags.
There's no evidence behind the wild claims of Pelosi and other ObamaCare proponents that the grass-roots protests against them are artificially manufactured.
But there is well-documented proof of the coordinated planning that has led to violent White House/Pelosi-backed thuggery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama and pelosi are nothing more than schoolyard bullies with brass knuckles. When groups like ACORN protested they were praised for their efforts. Its community organizing and democracy in action, but when ordinary citizens express their outrage and frustration they are bullied, called UN American, swastika waving angry mobs. WTF? We are angry and we have a right to be. The town hall meetings are being stacked against the protesters. It's oh so obvious to anyone with two good eyes. They aren't listening to the citizens who are saying, HEY WE DON'T WANT THIS ! STOP ! SLOW DOWN ! So now they are being bullied and persecuted by these union thugs into at the very least being made to look bad and at worst actually being hurt by physical violence-perpetrated by said union thugs. I have seen actual footage of some of this and I AM OUTRAGED ! Is this not AMERICA? or is it AMERIKA? We have to decide as a nation whether we are going to tolerate this kinda of behavior from our government or whether we are going to stand up as a nation and say NO MORE ! We have the right to ask the hard questions of our leaders and not be ignored, bullied, pushed aside,and at worst physically attacked. No matter what side of the aisle you are on this goes oh so much deeper than any of that. This goes to the core of what we are as a nation. Are we really free to question our leaders and do we still have the right to expect honest answers? Or has that time come and gone. I personally think we are on the brink of something really awful happening to this country. Folks no matter what your political persuasion need to seriously examine what is really happening in this country. We are slowing loosing the right to be heard if our opinion is different from what the government politicians have and that is really really scary. It should be if you still care about having true freedom of speech and still care about making your voice heard, I mean truly heard. Just think about it folks please. Don't let the thugs win, both in and out of government. They will rob us of something so precious to the core of this country, that once its gone, I don't know if we will ever get it back. That would be a tragedy of titanic proportions.
Newsweek columnist and TV pundit Eleanor Clift last week gave her Democratic friends a warning: "Unless Obama and his surrogates find the language to reassure the majority of Americans with health insurance that they will be better off under his reform plan, the AstroTurf opposition we see playing out now on our TV screens could morph into the real thing."
Clift is right to warn that the president's plans for a health care revolution in America are in political peril, but notice her self-contradictory description of the current populist revolt. If those many millions of Americans happy with their health insurance are unconvinced that ObamaCare will make things better for them, doesn't that suggest that the widespread opposition we're seeing this summer already is "the real thing"?
They've heard what's being planned. They know that the president's promise that they can keep their present coverage will mean little when the government-run "marketplaces" start dictating private insurers' coverage, killing who knows how many current plans and giving employers the incentive to stop offering medical insurance altogether.
They've heard about Section 1233 of the House health care bill, in which the federal government will "recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations," as the Washington Post's Charles Lane described it last week, adding: "You don't have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach."
You also don't have to be goaded on by insurance companies or talk radio hosts to express your worries to politicians at town halls.
Indeed, it is the opposition to this opposition that is aggressively and meticulously organized. White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina last week gave the order to "push back twice as hard."
And the national field director of the union-backed Health Care for America Now (HCAN) on Aug. 4 apparently sent out a four-page, single-spaced, 2,500-word-plus "how to bully" memo.
The document, featured on the Talking Points Memo Web site, says "it's important that you take away right-wingers' opportunities to talk with reporters." It tells operatives to "confiscate signs or leaflets" of those opposing ObamaCare. It adds: "Make sure that you assign marshals to take care of moving the crowd."
Human Events recently exposed a memo from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stating that congressional Democratic leaders and the White House are "working in close coordination with" HCAN and other union-backed groups in organizing a pro-ObamaCare PR blitz this month.
The White House-ordered push-back has extended even to racist violence. Thugs at Rep. Russ Carnahan's St. Louis town hall meeting last week beat and knocked down a black man, Kenneth Gladney. One called him the N-word, according to Gladney — all because he was distributing "Don't Tread On Me" flags.
There's no evidence behind the wild claims of Pelosi and other ObamaCare proponents that the grass-roots protests against them are artificially manufactured.
But there is well-documented proof of the coordinated planning that has led to violent White House/Pelosi-backed thuggery.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Obama and pelosi are nothing more than schoolyard bullies with brass knuckles. When groups like ACORN protested they were praised for their efforts. Its community organizing and democracy in action, but when ordinary citizens express their outrage and frustration they are bullied, called UN American, swastika waving angry mobs. WTF? We are angry and we have a right to be. The town hall meetings are being stacked against the protesters. It's oh so obvious to anyone with two good eyes. They aren't listening to the citizens who are saying, HEY WE DON'T WANT THIS ! STOP ! SLOW DOWN ! So now they are being bullied and persecuted by these union thugs into at the very least being made to look bad and at worst actually being hurt by physical violence-perpetrated by said union thugs. I have seen actual footage of some of this and I AM OUTRAGED ! Is this not AMERICA? or is it AMERIKA? We have to decide as a nation whether we are going to tolerate this kinda of behavior from our government or whether we are going to stand up as a nation and say NO MORE ! We have the right to ask the hard questions of our leaders and not be ignored, bullied, pushed aside,and at worst physically attacked. No matter what side of the aisle you are on this goes oh so much deeper than any of that. This goes to the core of what we are as a nation. Are we really free to question our leaders and do we still have the right to expect honest answers? Or has that time come and gone. I personally think we are on the brink of something really awful happening to this country. Folks no matter what your political persuasion need to seriously examine what is really happening in this country. We are slowing loosing the right to be heard if our opinion is different from what the government politicians have and that is really really scary. It should be if you still care about having true freedom of speech and still care about making your voice heard, I mean truly heard. Just think about it folks please. Don't let the thugs win, both in and out of government. They will rob us of something so precious to the core of this country, that once its gone, I don't know if we will ever get it back. That would be a tragedy of titanic proportions.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Medical Response to the Healthcare Proposal (too funny)
The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new health care plan being developed by the Obama Team.
Allergists voted to scratch it, but the
Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the
Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'
Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing..
Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the
Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."
Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the
Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.
Anesthesiologists thought the idea was a gas, and the
Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no. In the end, the
Proctologists are leaving the entire decision up to the butt holes in Washington
Allergists voted to scratch it, but the
Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the
Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception.
Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the
Pediatricians said, 'Oh, Grow up!'
Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the
Radiologists could see right through it.
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing..
Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the
Plastic Surgeons said, "This puts a whole new face on the matter."
Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the
Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea.
Anesthesiologists thought the idea was a gas, and the
Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no. In the end, the
Proctologists are leaving the entire decision up to the butt holes in Washington
Friday, August 7, 2009
Another good article from IBD ( I love these guys lol) (warning major rant included lol)
Are We In America Or Amerika?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Public Debate:
Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care "reform" on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical by the day. This isn't healthy for the republic.
Their increasing anxiety and fear of failure are typified in the words of the leader of their party, who wants Republicans to keep their mouths shut while he "fixes" health care.
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking," the president said Thursday at a political rally in Virginia. "I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."
So much for the promises of bipartisan lawmaking. So much for open discussion. So much for understanding who really caused the "mess" in the first place. Like Al Gore claiming the debate about global warming is over, the White House simply wants to shut down dialogue over who controls more than one-seventh of the economy.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to come out in favor of repressing speech. But she's inclined to ignore it. The San Francisco Democrat vowed Thursday in Denver that the swelling public opposition to government-run health care would not persuade party leaders to back down.
"The plan for August is to have a discussion, to listen carefully to what people are saying, what ideas they may have to improve the legislation as it affects them," Pelosi said. In other words, Americans can suggest changes, but the elitists in Washington will not withdraw plans to take over the best health care system in the world.
Earlier in the week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid walked the same line as Pelosi, making it clear that the Democratic leadership had no intention of listening to fed-up voters.
"In spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings and just throw a monkey wrench into everything," he said, "we're going to continue to be positive and work hard."
By Thursday, Reid was saying that protesters were trying to "sabotage" the democratic process, which apparently in his world is a place where there is no opposition to the Democrats' process of invading every corner of private life.
On the same day, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, said she thought the protests against government health care at lawmakers' town hall meetings were "un-American and disrespectful." Hours later, she retracted the statement, probably less concerned about the inaccuracy of her statement than mindful of the fact that she had just insulted a large group of voters who can unseat her.
Truth is, there's nothing more American than revolting against heavy-handed authority, be it a long train of abuses from a king or the lawmaking of elected officials with strong authoritarian urges. This is a nation founded on independence, and there is a large portion of it that wants to retain that priceless heritage.
This seems to confuse some lawmakers. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., can't understand that what he's watching is a freedom movement. In his eyes, the protesters are Nazis — or almost.
"What we're seeing right now is close to brownshirt tactics," Baird said Wednesday, by way of explaining why he was refusing to face his constituents directly in town hall meetings and would instead hold telephone town halls.
Voters' deep anger is justifiable. They have every right to disrupt and shout down public figures who, as the protesters can be heard chanting, work for them. At dispute is not a mere difference of opinion that can and should be discussed in a civil manner, but a fundamental question of who is in charge of peoples' lives.
We are not advocating violence, though coercive government is at its core violent as the state is required to resort to force to ensure that its directives aren't violated.
But we do support our fellow citizens' right to express their rage at an injustice, particularly if it makes lawmakers uncomfortable. Shouldn't Americans bristle when their independence is threatened, when a federal official, in this case White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, says party leaders "will punch back twice as hard" when voters merely show their displeasure?
The freedom the protesters are defending can sometimes be messy and imperfect. A lack of freedom, however, is eternally oppressive. It is an unrelenting prison that poisons the human spirit, even when cloaked in allegedly humane programs such as government-run health care.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a comment on what Mr. Obama said about the protesters. WTF? Can you imagine the dignified former President Bush stooping down that low? I certainly cannot. Why has he got to act like such a bully when some Americans actually decide to exercise their right by protesting something they believe is genuinely wrong? Also wasn't Mr. Obama a community organizer (for a corrupt ACORN but that is besides the point)? So shouldn't he be celebrating this community organizing thats going on? Its not violent although they clearly are very fustrated and certainly more peaceful than most of the Bush and war protestors were. He is a hypocrocrite. Simple as that
Why is it ok for ACORN protesters to chant and protest all they want and really sound like an "angry mob" but when concerned citizens try to speak up then all of the sudden we are a swastika- waving angry mob?
Another point I want to make is these lawmakers don't really give a hoot in he** what we really want or what we think. They are gonna do what they are gonna do (usually what the liberals running the show really want) and nothing us concerned citizens say is really going to make them buck their party enough to stop this so yeah we are angry by God. We have a right to be and no amount of bullying and name calling is going to change that. I certainly hope those who have the sense to see this bill for being the slippery slope to single payer health care that it really is, will have the fortitude to stand their ground. It's discouraging sometimes when you are constantly attacked for just standing up for what you believe is right.
So this is the hope and change huh? You know what? NO THANKS, I would rather have my freedom and my healthcare. It's not a fair trade. Can I take a pass?
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Public Debate:
Democrats, bloodied over their attempt to force health care "reform" on Americans, are looking more unreasonable and hysterical by the day. This isn't healthy for the republic.
Their increasing anxiety and fear of failure are typified in the words of the leader of their party, who wants Republicans to keep their mouths shut while he "fixes" health care.
"I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking," the president said Thursday at a political rally in Virginia. "I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess."
So much for the promises of bipartisan lawmaking. So much for open discussion. So much for understanding who really caused the "mess" in the first place. Like Al Gore claiming the debate about global warming is over, the White House simply wants to shut down dialogue over who controls more than one-seventh of the economy.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has yet to come out in favor of repressing speech. But she's inclined to ignore it. The San Francisco Democrat vowed Thursday in Denver that the swelling public opposition to government-run health care would not persuade party leaders to back down.
"The plan for August is to have a discussion, to listen carefully to what people are saying, what ideas they may have to improve the legislation as it affects them," Pelosi said. In other words, Americans can suggest changes, but the elitists in Washington will not withdraw plans to take over the best health care system in the world.
Earlier in the week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid walked the same line as Pelosi, making it clear that the Democratic leadership had no intention of listening to fed-up voters.
"In spite of the loud, shrill voices trying to interrupt town hall meetings and just throw a monkey wrench into everything," he said, "we're going to continue to be positive and work hard."
By Thursday, Reid was saying that protesters were trying to "sabotage" the democratic process, which apparently in his world is a place where there is no opposition to the Democrats' process of invading every corner of private life.
On the same day, Sen. Blanche Lincoln, Democrat of Arkansas, said she thought the protests against government health care at lawmakers' town hall meetings were "un-American and disrespectful." Hours later, she retracted the statement, probably less concerned about the inaccuracy of her statement than mindful of the fact that she had just insulted a large group of voters who can unseat her.
Truth is, there's nothing more American than revolting against heavy-handed authority, be it a long train of abuses from a king or the lawmaking of elected officials with strong authoritarian urges. This is a nation founded on independence, and there is a large portion of it that wants to retain that priceless heritage.
This seems to confuse some lawmakers. Rep. Brian Baird, D-Wash., can't understand that what he's watching is a freedom movement. In his eyes, the protesters are Nazis — or almost.
"What we're seeing right now is close to brownshirt tactics," Baird said Wednesday, by way of explaining why he was refusing to face his constituents directly in town hall meetings and would instead hold telephone town halls.
Voters' deep anger is justifiable. They have every right to disrupt and shout down public figures who, as the protesters can be heard chanting, work for them. At dispute is not a mere difference of opinion that can and should be discussed in a civil manner, but a fundamental question of who is in charge of peoples' lives.
We are not advocating violence, though coercive government is at its core violent as the state is required to resort to force to ensure that its directives aren't violated.
But we do support our fellow citizens' right to express their rage at an injustice, particularly if it makes lawmakers uncomfortable. Shouldn't Americans bristle when their independence is threatened, when a federal official, in this case White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina, says party leaders "will punch back twice as hard" when voters merely show their displeasure?
The freedom the protesters are defending can sometimes be messy and imperfect. A lack of freedom, however, is eternally oppressive. It is an unrelenting prison that poisons the human spirit, even when cloaked in allegedly humane programs such as government-run health care.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a comment on what Mr. Obama said about the protesters. WTF? Can you imagine the dignified former President Bush stooping down that low? I certainly cannot. Why has he got to act like such a bully when some Americans actually decide to exercise their right by protesting something they believe is genuinely wrong? Also wasn't Mr. Obama a community organizer (for a corrupt ACORN but that is besides the point)? So shouldn't he be celebrating this community organizing thats going on? Its not violent although they clearly are very fustrated and certainly more peaceful than most of the Bush and war protestors were. He is a hypocrocrite. Simple as that
Why is it ok for ACORN protesters to chant and protest all they want and really sound like an "angry mob" but when concerned citizens try to speak up then all of the sudden we are a swastika- waving angry mob?
Another point I want to make is these lawmakers don't really give a hoot in he** what we really want or what we think. They are gonna do what they are gonna do (usually what the liberals running the show really want) and nothing us concerned citizens say is really going to make them buck their party enough to stop this so yeah we are angry by God. We have a right to be and no amount of bullying and name calling is going to change that. I certainly hope those who have the sense to see this bill for being the slippery slope to single payer health care that it really is, will have the fortitude to stand their ground. It's discouraging sometimes when you are constantly attacked for just standing up for what you believe is right.
So this is the hope and change huh? You know what? NO THANKS, I would rather have my freedom and my healthcare. It's not a fair trade. Can I take a pass?
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Maybe people are finally starting to see him for what he actually is. One can only hope so.
Obama approval rating sinks to 50 percent: poll
Buzz up!203 votes Send
WASHINGTON, Aug 6, 2009 (AFP) – US President Barack Obama's approval rating has slumped to 50 percent, the lowest since his inauguration, according to a poll released Thursday on the eve of his 200th day in office.
Quinnipiac University said the president's job approval rating dipped to 50 percent, versus 42 percent who disapprove -- a reflection of growing unease over Obama's handling of the economy, which sank into a devastating recession last year prompting his administration to unleash a deficit-stretching stimulus package, and health care which faces a critical overhaul in Congress. ( Socializing is not overhauling it, it's just putting it in government control in the long run)
The figure is a substantial drop from the 57-33 percent approval rating he had on July 2, and far less than the numbers he enjoyed in the honeymoon first 100 days of his tenure.
The poll of 2,409 registered voters nationwide found they disapproved 49-45 percent of the way Obama was handling the economy, and disapproved 52-39 percent on his handling of health care, but approved 52-38 percent of his foreign policy.
(I don't approve of that at all because he goes around acting like a wussie and constantly apologizing for America when he shouldnt be. Its embarrasing to me)
While Republicans disapproved of the Democratic president's job performance by an expectedly large margin of 77-16 percent, the poll found that Americans disapproved 59-29 percent of how Republicans in Congress were doing their job and that they trusted Obama over Republicans 47-36 percent to fix the economy and 46-37 percent to deal with health care.
(I am not sure at this point I trust either them although I expect that republicans will usually lower my taxes which is always a good thing)
"The president is right on the magic 50-percent threshold in public approval because of bad grades on the economy and even worse grades on health care," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.
"The good news... is that American voters still see him as better able to handle the economy and health care than Republicans in Congress," Brown said. "The bad news is his margins are shrinking." ( I never thought he was doing well)
On July 21 a USA Today/Gallup poll found Obama's approval rating was 55 percent six months into his presidency, one point lower than that of his predecessor George W. Bush at the same point in his tenure.
Another poll released Thursday revealed better numbers for Obama, the nation's first black president, but showed the same downward trend as Quinnipiac's.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll of 1,136 adult Americans -- including what it described as an "oversample of African-Americans" -- said 56 percent of respondents approved of the way Obama was handling his job, compared with 40 percent who disapprove.
In late June, that figure stood at 61-37 percent, according to CNN.
The Quinnipiac poll said 93 percent of respondents described the US economy as "not so good" or "poor," with just 28 percent saying it is improving, and 29 percent saying it is getting worse. Forty-one percent saw no change.
The survey also found that "by a 49-33 percent margin, voters think his policies will help the economy, but they believe, 36-33 percent, that Obama's policies will hurt their personal financial situation," Brown said. (me too)
The poll conducted July 27 to August 3 had a margin of error of two percentage points.
Obama has hit the road in recent weeks, traveling to parts of the American heartland to push his efforts to stabilize the economy and his bid to reform health care.
He has pledged to overhaul the US health care system. He and most Democratic lawmakers want to introduce a public coverage option, while many Republican members of Congress and some conservative Democrats are against the idea.
On Tuesday a Harris Interactive online survey showed a majority of Americans are in favor, 52-30 percent, of having a government-run health care option as proposed by Obama. (I am definately one of those 52 %)Quinnipiac also showed that Obama was licking his wounds in the wake of a race scandal in which he said police "acted stupidly" when a white officer arrested prominent black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at the scholar's own home last month.
By 46-37 percent, respondents said Obama himself acted "stupidly" in the dispute, and by a margin of 62-26 percent they said Obama should not have intervened at all.
Buzz up!203 votes Send
WASHINGTON, Aug 6, 2009 (AFP) – US President Barack Obama's approval rating has slumped to 50 percent, the lowest since his inauguration, according to a poll released Thursday on the eve of his 200th day in office.
Quinnipiac University said the president's job approval rating dipped to 50 percent, versus 42 percent who disapprove -- a reflection of growing unease over Obama's handling of the economy, which sank into a devastating recession last year prompting his administration to unleash a deficit-stretching stimulus package, and health care which faces a critical overhaul in Congress. ( Socializing is not overhauling it, it's just putting it in government control in the long run)
The figure is a substantial drop from the 57-33 percent approval rating he had on July 2, and far less than the numbers he enjoyed in the honeymoon first 100 days of his tenure.
The poll of 2,409 registered voters nationwide found they disapproved 49-45 percent of the way Obama was handling the economy, and disapproved 52-39 percent on his handling of health care, but approved 52-38 percent of his foreign policy.
(I don't approve of that at all because he goes around acting like a wussie and constantly apologizing for America when he shouldnt be. Its embarrasing to me)
While Republicans disapproved of the Democratic president's job performance by an expectedly large margin of 77-16 percent, the poll found that Americans disapproved 59-29 percent of how Republicans in Congress were doing their job and that they trusted Obama over Republicans 47-36 percent to fix the economy and 46-37 percent to deal with health care.
(I am not sure at this point I trust either them although I expect that republicans will usually lower my taxes which is always a good thing)
"The president is right on the magic 50-percent threshold in public approval because of bad grades on the economy and even worse grades on health care," said Peter Brown, assistant director of Quinnipiac's Polling Institute.
"The good news... is that American voters still see him as better able to handle the economy and health care than Republicans in Congress," Brown said. "The bad news is his margins are shrinking." ( I never thought he was doing well)
On July 21 a USA Today/Gallup poll found Obama's approval rating was 55 percent six months into his presidency, one point lower than that of his predecessor George W. Bush at the same point in his tenure.
Another poll released Thursday revealed better numbers for Obama, the nation's first black president, but showed the same downward trend as Quinnipiac's.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation telephone poll of 1,136 adult Americans -- including what it described as an "oversample of African-Americans" -- said 56 percent of respondents approved of the way Obama was handling his job, compared with 40 percent who disapprove.
In late June, that figure stood at 61-37 percent, according to CNN.
The Quinnipiac poll said 93 percent of respondents described the US economy as "not so good" or "poor," with just 28 percent saying it is improving, and 29 percent saying it is getting worse. Forty-one percent saw no change.
The survey also found that "by a 49-33 percent margin, voters think his policies will help the economy, but they believe, 36-33 percent, that Obama's policies will hurt their personal financial situation," Brown said. (me too)
The poll conducted July 27 to August 3 had a margin of error of two percentage points.
Obama has hit the road in recent weeks, traveling to parts of the American heartland to push his efforts to stabilize the economy and his bid to reform health care.
He has pledged to overhaul the US health care system. He and most Democratic lawmakers want to introduce a public coverage option, while many Republican members of Congress and some conservative Democrats are against the idea.
On Tuesday a Harris Interactive online survey showed a majority of Americans are in favor, 52-30 percent, of having a government-run health care option as proposed by Obama. (I am definately one of those 52 %)Quinnipiac also showed that Obama was licking his wounds in the wake of a race scandal in which he said police "acted stupidly" when a white officer arrested prominent black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at the scholar's own home last month.
By 46-37 percent, respondents said Obama himself acted "stupidly" in the dispute, and by a margin of 62-26 percent they said Obama should not have intervened at all.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Way to go folks. Just keep it up. We may go down, but we aren't going down without a fight.
Those 'Town Hells'
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, August 04, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Representative Government: Some of the Democrats who want to hijack American health care are not exactly getting a warm welcome from voters back home. It's inspiring to watch our system in action.
Congress tried to ram more than 1,000 pages of health care legislation down the country's throat last month, but was unable to vote on a bill before the House left for its August recess. Lawmakers might yet get away with passing what they are calling reform, but not before some members are verbally blistered by their constituents.
Which is exactly the way it should be.
In one of the sharper exchanges, an angry crowd in Philadelphia hooted down Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter on Sunday when he explained "that we have to make judgments very fast" when considering large pieces of legislation such as the health care bill.
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who shared the stage with Specter, also heard it from the group, which was obviously fed up with Washington's arrogance, from its habit of writing unmanageably lengthy legislation to its plans to force an ostensibly free people into a communal health care system.
On the same day Specter and Sebelius were challenged, Democratic Rep. Steve Driehaus "was heckled on several occasions by those opposed to the reform plans proposed by Democrats and President Barack Obama" during a town hall meeting in Cincinnati, according to the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Also on Sunday, Democratic Rep. Steve Kagen of Wisconsin endured "roaring chants," as the local media put it, at a meeting at a Green Bay library.
A day earlier, Rep. Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas, deserved the hostile reception given him at a town hall meeting in Austin. He has said that he will still support the Democrats' nationalized health care plans even if his constituents don't. (OMG HOW ARROGENT IS HE? They wont be his constituents for long with that attitude)
Other Democratic lawmakers who have been inconvenienced by voters exasperated over the health care bill include Rep. Tim Bishop of New York, Rep. Russ Carnahan of Missouri and Rep. Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania.
Those who haven't yet heard from their constituents should expect to. Encounters similar to what we have seen will only become more frequent as public irritation festers as the congressional holiday moves through August and into September.
The media can refer to the citizens as mobs, and Democrats can blame all the animosity on lobbyists, as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., did when he said Specter and Sebelius fell for a "sucker punch" from the health insurance industry that had set up the clash.
But the industry doesn't need to whip up the crowds. The public on its own is deeply frustrated not only by elitists' attempt to take over their health care decisions, but fed up with a Congress that legislates as if it has a divine right to rule.
Lawmakers need to face the revolution they've fueled with their bailouts and takeovers. Washington has acted like King George III and "erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers to harass" Americans "and eat out their substance."
It is meddling in people's lives and has no business going into the private places it is invading. Americans have both the right and the duty to stand up to forces that want to subjugate them.
Polite discourse is always preferred, but when liberty is threatened by an aggressive government, civil dialogue is not enough. Voters need to exercise their right to press their representatives and influence legislation.
Lawmakers should not be allowed to hide behind claims that they are being accosted by rabble. If they're going to put a boot on people's necks, the people have the right to confront their oppressors.
Monday, August 3, 2009
Unread Lips - By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 03
Unread Lips
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Trustworthiness: The media savaged President George H.W. Bush for breaking his tax pledge. Will President Obama instead get a pass for breaking trust on middle-class taxes and medical care?
Could Obama have been elected president without promising not to raise taxes on the middle class? Would Americans have trusted him with the highest office in the land if he had proposed replacing all private health insurance with a Euro-style, socialistic, single-payer system?
As Ben Stein put it in his American Spectator diary, "The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust . . . wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith."
Did the president shrewdly mislead Americans last year regarding his true intentions?
"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., in September. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He vowed: "You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, when asked about new taxes on those with moderate incomes, told ABC that reducing the deficit is "going to be difficult, hard for us to do." And "we're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, meanwhile, when asked Sunday about funding ObamaCare with such tax increases, responded that "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
And the president, appearing before the American Medical Association in June, scoffed at the supposed "illegitimate concern" that "a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system."
But Breitbart TV this week posted an astonishing montage of clips prepared by the Naked Emperor News Web site, placing the president's assertion into serious doubt.
One was from a March 2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) health care forum, at which candidate Obama spoke of ending private coverage, stating that "I don't think we're gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately"; it might take 10, 15 or 20 years, he said.
In another, from an AFL-CIO "civil, human and women's rights" conference in 2003, the future president described himself as "a proponent of single-payer universal health care coverage. . . . That's what I'd like to see."
Another clip featured Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., stating last week that "I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer, and that's the best way to reach single payer."
It should not take alternative news sources to bring the president's multiple "read my lips" reversals to public awareness. Isn't it obvious that if such inconsistencies — suggesting calculated untruthfulness — had come from a Republican president, the establishment media would have unearthed them long, long ago?
---------------------------------------------------------------
See but why do they care? Why should they when they will never have to go on it? You know socialized healthcare is marginally decent as long you dont grow old and you don't get too sick, then you are a liability and are gonna be more likely to suffer delays in getting treatment if you can get it at all. I have read so many stories from Canada and England that bear this truth out. A poll was released today that said 48% of Amercians are happy with their healthcare AND I AM ONE OF THEM. Only 19 % are unhappy. This bears thinking about don't you think? Really if they wanted to change things one of the biggest things they could is TORT reform. However, I doubt very much Obama will ever do that even though I believe it would make a big difference. The trial lawyers are just too much in bed with the liberals for that to ever happen. They just have too much influence and clout. I heard today that Texas had a bad problem with malpractice suits and so doctors were fleeing the area, esp the good ones. Tort reform has taken place there to some extent and the doctors are coming back. Premiums are going for the people because the doctors are paying less for malpractice insurance and as a result people are getting better care. Why in the world can our federal government not do this instead of trying to socialize it which would only make things so much worse? We cannot afford to do what Obama wants to do. He can't keep printing money like its monoply money. Why must he like so many liberals just think if you throw enough money at a problem that that will fix it? And why must they always think raising taxes is the answer? It just makes things worse. Its common sense economics that the more you take from people, esp a ever growing smaller portion of people, the less money you are going to end up getting. This truth is already becoming quite to anyone with a working set of eyes and a brain in their head (and that thinks for themselves)
I just want people to start thinking a little bit more for themselves and stop believing all the crap that is being flung about (on both sides I might add).
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 03, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Trustworthiness: The media savaged President George H.W. Bush for breaking his tax pledge. Will President Obama instead get a pass for breaking trust on middle-class taxes and medical care?
Could Obama have been elected president without promising not to raise taxes on the middle class? Would Americans have trusted him with the highest office in the land if he had proposed replacing all private health insurance with a Euro-style, socialistic, single-payer system?
As Ben Stein put it in his American Spectator diary, "The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust . . . wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith."
Did the president shrewdly mislead Americans last year regarding his true intentions?
"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., in September. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." He vowed: "You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
Over the weekend, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, when asked about new taxes on those with moderate incomes, told ABC that reducing the deficit is "going to be difficult, hard for us to do." And "we're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take."
National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, meanwhile, when asked Sunday about funding ObamaCare with such tax increases, responded that "it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what."
And the president, appearing before the American Medical Association in June, scoffed at the supposed "illegitimate concern" that "a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system."
But Breitbart TV this week posted an astonishing montage of clips prepared by the Naked Emperor News Web site, placing the president's assertion into serious doubt.
One was from a March 2007 Service Employees International Union (SEIU) health care forum, at which candidate Obama spoke of ending private coverage, stating that "I don't think we're gonna be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately"; it might take 10, 15 or 20 years, he said.
In another, from an AFL-CIO "civil, human and women's rights" conference in 2003, the future president described himself as "a proponent of single-payer universal health care coverage. . . . That's what I'd like to see."
Another clip featured Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., stating last week that "I think if we get a good public option, it could lead to single payer, and that's the best way to reach single payer."
It should not take alternative news sources to bring the president's multiple "read my lips" reversals to public awareness. Isn't it obvious that if such inconsistencies — suggesting calculated untruthfulness — had come from a Republican president, the establishment media would have unearthed them long, long ago?
---------------------------------------------------------------
See but why do they care? Why should they when they will never have to go on it? You know socialized healthcare is marginally decent as long you dont grow old and you don't get too sick, then you are a liability and are gonna be more likely to suffer delays in getting treatment if you can get it at all. I have read so many stories from Canada and England that bear this truth out. A poll was released today that said 48% of Amercians are happy with their healthcare AND I AM ONE OF THEM. Only 19 % are unhappy. This bears thinking about don't you think? Really if they wanted to change things one of the biggest things they could is TORT reform. However, I doubt very much Obama will ever do that even though I believe it would make a big difference. The trial lawyers are just too much in bed with the liberals for that to ever happen. They just have too much influence and clout. I heard today that Texas had a bad problem with malpractice suits and so doctors were fleeing the area, esp the good ones. Tort reform has taken place there to some extent and the doctors are coming back. Premiums are going for the people because the doctors are paying less for malpractice insurance and as a result people are getting better care. Why in the world can our federal government not do this instead of trying to socialize it which would only make things so much worse? We cannot afford to do what Obama wants to do. He can't keep printing money like its monoply money. Why must he like so many liberals just think if you throw enough money at a problem that that will fix it? And why must they always think raising taxes is the answer? It just makes things worse. Its common sense economics that the more you take from people, esp a ever growing smaller portion of people, the less money you are going to end up getting. This truth is already becoming quite to anyone with a working set of eyes and a brain in their head (and that thinks for themselves)
I just want people to start thinking a little bit more for themselves and stop believing all the crap that is being flung about (on both sides I might add).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
