With a majority of US citizens and voters AGAINST socialized medicine, Pazzo Pelosi continues her sick and twisted machinations to jam the bill through congress over those objections, as well as representatives' apprehensions that if they vote "yes," they'll be thrown out on their asses in the November elections. So she's conjured up some new b.s. called "deeming" to ram the bill through without a vote.
Yeah. Without a vote. No one is responsible or accountable. Shit happens. What can you do?
We can vote you blockheads out, anyway, just for the hell of it, that's what we can do. If the nation survives until November. If the Comrade doesn't find some reason to cancel the elections. Like, US citizens have been naughty.
I think Nancy belongs in Venezuela. She'd feel much more at home there, servicing Chavez. I mean, if she likes the Comrade, she'd love a guy who rules with an iron fist without bothering with the velvet glove. She probably gets a tingle up her leg just thinking about it.
With the deeming process, if I understand it right, the House will consider some other bill that mentions the Senate socialized medicine bill in passing. So reps vote on the second bill and simply assume that the Senate bill has passed. Then, voila!, the Comrade signs the second bill and both become law.
And the republic dies on the side of the road, having outlived its "one brief shining moment...."
"Deeming" is what the Comrade does all the time. He doesn't question whether or not citizens want totalitarian communism in the USA; he doesn't ask because if he's honest, he knows what the answer will be. So he just assumes they do and acts on that premise. He thinks we're all too stupid to know where he's coming from, so he can slip his storm trooper controls over all of us and we won't notice. Apparently Pazzo Pelosi shares his views and supports this tactic.
Gutless, pathetic power-hungry slobs. They are underestimating the people and the strength of our tradtions. And it's painfully obvious they don't have a clue what those traditions are.
I don't want a bloody revolution because I suspect the blackguards who are provoking one -- the Comrade and his minions -- are just praying for such a national emergency so they'd have an excuse to slam down some kind of fascism openly and forthrightly. Think "Reichstag Fire" and Ram Emanual's fondness for crises. However, whether the military would go along with this remains to be seen. I suspect not. And I don't think SEIU's Purple Shirts would be an effective police force. Not unless they get triple-time and extra vacation.
However, the Comrade and merry marxists are pushing all this socialist crap to the point where violence of some sort may be the only way to get rid of them.
I'd prefer to see a national strike for a day or two. Let's just shut it all down on April 15, whaddaya think? Just stay home. Give everyone a day off. Dont' shop. Just stay home and maybe email your congressman for whatever that's worth, since they don't give a damn what we think anyway. A general strike is one way to display the power of the people peacefully.
And again, and since this all began, the question is: Why?
The USA has been the light of the world.
You'd have to be a pretty vile, evil and disgusting piece of crap to want to destroy it. But I guess that just about sums up this White House, Pelosi, Reid, and all of their supporters. Sick, power-hungry, and paranoid -- as in "delusions of grandeur."
They deserve what they'll get.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Half-baked liberal morality
Interesting.... when the dems run out of logic and reason, they go for morality. Or try to. But it's a kind of nonsensical morality, like putting a Band-Aid on an amputation. It never works really well and in the end, they kill the patient.
The pro-socialized medicine argument-of-the-week from dems is that socialized medicine is the "right" thing to do. What a load of garbage.
Socialized medicine does not raise the availability or the standard of care for anyone. It does just the opposite: it reduces availalibility and standard of care to its lowest common denominator, spreads availability and care very wide and dismally thin over the entire population.
In addition, if health care is a matter of government policy, social engineering becomes an imperative, because we'll all be paying for fat peoples' heart attacks and for skinny peoples' anorexia. We'll be compelled -- by law and burdensome taxation -- to strive for some kind of plain-vanilla somewhere-in-the-middle "healthy" behavior. 'Course, the standard of healthy behavior changes every few years and according to every published study. So we'll all just be pushed and pulled in every direction, mindless lumps of flesh for the Health Care Czar to experiment with.
Eat a pound of broccoli every day. No! Too much vitamin K. Do 50 crunches before work every morning. And die of cardiac arrest. Medicine isn't an exact science. I think standardization and best practices would be very hard to come by without trial-and-error on hundreds of thousands of patients.
Like, some people thought thalidomide was really cool for pregnant women. Unti there was an epidemic of babies born with two or three heads. And estrogen-replacement therapy? Estrogen makes things grow -- including cancers.
So what's right and wrong here?
Do you "help" people by making them dependent? By taking away their right to make their own decisions and live their own lives? By eliminating their incentive for acting on their own behalf? By divorcing actions from consequences?
Those in favor of socialized medicine regard the American public as 300 millions toddlers who don't know what they're doing and are incapable of running their own lives and making their own decisions. Personally, I find that very insulting. And the thought of an Anthony Weiner making my meal choices is sort of revolting.
So we're too stupid to manage our own health care, but the ultimately we have to make enough money to pay truckloads of taxes for this socialized health care scheme. Funny how we're bright and able enough to pay for other peoples' government-dictated insurance, but not our own. What's wrong with this picture?
Or, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money."
Then no one gets health care and you can't even pay your rent.
Sound like a "good" plan?
As an added bonus, the free market in health care is destroyed. Or goes underground. That may be the best outcome of socialized medicine -- it promotes the development of an unregulated black market. But that only means tougher decisions for citizens, who would be dealing with largely unreliable information about providers and services.
So tell me again, is socialized medicine a "good" thing? Now tell me what your reasoning is based on except for what's come to be known as "liberal guilt" and its up-side: self-serving liberal totalitarianism, or what Mark Levin calls "soft tyranny."
"Good" for who?
The pro-socialized medicine argument-of-the-week from dems is that socialized medicine is the "right" thing to do. What a load of garbage.
- Socialized medicine eliminates peoples' choices of health care providers and therapies;
- Socialized medicine eliminates physicians' choices of therapy and patients;
- Socialized medicine generates shortages and rationing;
- Socialized medicine reduces the likelihood of medical innovation and research;
- Socialized medicine relieves health care providers of liability for what they do;
- Socialized medicine is bankrupting several nations now, and so is Medicare in the USA;
- Socialized medicine swamps medical facilities with trivial complaints -- what the hell, you're paying for it whether you want to or not, might as well take advantage;
- Socialized medicine eliminates the incentives of income and status for health care providers;
- Socialized medicine will cost much more than privately-funded care because it includes no incentives for cost-savings or efficiency;
- etc.
Socialized medicine does not raise the availability or the standard of care for anyone. It does just the opposite: it reduces availalibility and standard of care to its lowest common denominator, spreads availability and care very wide and dismally thin over the entire population.
In addition, if health care is a matter of government policy, social engineering becomes an imperative, because we'll all be paying for fat peoples' heart attacks and for skinny peoples' anorexia. We'll be compelled -- by law and burdensome taxation -- to strive for some kind of plain-vanilla somewhere-in-the-middle "healthy" behavior. 'Course, the standard of healthy behavior changes every few years and according to every published study. So we'll all just be pushed and pulled in every direction, mindless lumps of flesh for the Health Care Czar to experiment with.
Eat a pound of broccoli every day. No! Too much vitamin K. Do 50 crunches before work every morning. And die of cardiac arrest. Medicine isn't an exact science. I think standardization and best practices would be very hard to come by without trial-and-error on hundreds of thousands of patients.
Like, some people thought thalidomide was really cool for pregnant women. Unti there was an epidemic of babies born with two or three heads. And estrogen-replacement therapy? Estrogen makes things grow -- including cancers.
So what's right and wrong here?
Do you "help" people by making them dependent? By taking away their right to make their own decisions and live their own lives? By eliminating their incentive for acting on their own behalf? By divorcing actions from consequences?
Those in favor of socialized medicine regard the American public as 300 millions toddlers who don't know what they're doing and are incapable of running their own lives and making their own decisions. Personally, I find that very insulting. And the thought of an Anthony Weiner making my meal choices is sort of revolting.
So we're too stupid to manage our own health care, but the ultimately we have to make enough money to pay truckloads of taxes for this socialized health care scheme. Funny how we're bright and able enough to pay for other peoples' government-dictated insurance, but not our own. What's wrong with this picture?
Or, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money."
Then no one gets health care and you can't even pay your rent.
Sound like a "good" plan?
As an added bonus, the free market in health care is destroyed. Or goes underground. That may be the best outcome of socialized medicine -- it promotes the development of an unregulated black market. But that only means tougher decisions for citizens, who would be dealing with largely unreliable information about providers and services.
So tell me again, is socialized medicine a "good" thing? Now tell me what your reasoning is based on except for what's come to be known as "liberal guilt" and its up-side: self-serving liberal totalitarianism, or what Mark Levin calls "soft tyranny."
"Good" for who?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
...But he plays one in the movies
World War II scholar Tom Hanks appeared on (was it) NBC Wednesday morning. Apparently after a really close reading of the screenplay for "South Pacific," Hanks has determined: "They [the Japanese] wanted to kill us because we were different. We wanted to kill them because they were different." He added that this is not so very different from what's going on today.
Hey, Tom, are you aware that the Japanese, in a sneak attack, just about totally anihilated the USA's entire Pacific fleet? This was just about dawn on December 7, 1941. You never heard about the attack on Pearl Harbor? That's in Hawaii. Hawaii wasn't a state then, but the US military bases there provided an irresistable target. Most of our Pacific fleet was all pretty much lumped into one harbor. The Japanese could wipe them all out in about an hour.
Not to shock you too much.... One often-quoted sailor who saw the whole thing said "it was raining sailors" when the bombs hit the ships. Guys trying to escape, and I imagine some of them -- just pieces of them falling into the sea.
See, Hitler had sort of an alliance with the Japanese. Hitler certainly didn't believe that Asians were half as worthy as Aryans, but he thought he'd let the Japanese conquer Asia and the Pacific while he [Hitler] was getting Europe under control. Then he was going to crush Japan, or at least make it clear to them who was really running things.
Hitler didn't believe America would fight. He saw the USA more as a kind of huge warehouse and factory for its European allies.
Ha-ha!! We sure taught him a thing or two, didn't we? Remember "Saving Private Ryan," Tom? That was supposed to be in Europe during World War II. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we threw in with the Allies to help end the war there before focusing on Japan in the Pacific.
Any of this sound sort of familiar, Tom? You and I both were born after the worst was over, but I've actually spoken to people who lived through it. My uncle was a dive-bomber pilot, shooting down Japanese Kamikaze planes before they could destroy US ships.
My mother and one of my brothers actually met Audie Murphy once. He was a highly-decorated soldier in World War II. He was still a teenager when he joined up. He's buried right across the tour bus turnaround near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetary. I mean, he's really there. It really did happen. He wrote a book about it and even starred in a movie about his exploits during the war. Maybe you missed that one. I don't recall any racism in either the book or the movie, but you know how Americans are, sweeping things under the carpet and all....
And, of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- the atom bomb, that is -- those were just more proof of American racism.
I used to work with a guy named Henry who worked on The Bomb, or the undercarriage to carry it. See, they couldn't make the bomb bay doors on the plane big enough to drop the damn thing, so they had to carry it under the plane. Henry had absolutely no idea what he was engineering, or the purpose of it. He was in Baltimore and not allowed outside the place where he was working. But when he heard the news about Hiroshima, he figured it out.
I also had the opportunity to interview a guy who served on the Indianapolis. Remember "Jaws," Tom? That Steven Spielberg movie? You know Steven Spielberg. Ask him. The Indianapolis was the ship that "delivered the bomb," as Robert Shaw explained to Richard Dreyfus. So they delivered the bomb, under radio silence and all. No one -- not even the Navy -- knew where they were. Then the ship was bombed by the Japanese, and the crew ended up in the water, fodder for a shark feeding frenzy for a couple days.
When I interviewed this guy, I wasn't aware of the history of the Indianapolis. Someone told him to tell me his story. He laid his head on the table and cried like a baby. He didn't have any legs, but I don't know if that was because of the sharks or due to diabetes or something. And he was black.
But this is all about American racism against Asians, right? So I guess we can include blacks in that, right? After all, blacks can hate Asians as much as white people can, right?
Anyway, exactly what do you think was driving Hitler? And the USA stopped him. Why on earth did we do that? Had we been on the other side in Europe -- if we'd supported Hitler -- maybe right now the world would be populated entirely by white people of European descent, and not even a Jew left in the whole bunch. I guess we really blew that one, huh? We could have turned Japan -- and anyone else we don't like -- into marshmallow fluff, but we didn't for some reason.
And you know what else? Hitler had talks with people from the Middle East, too, not just the Japanese. He convinced a few of these leaders to re-name their country "Iran." Know what "Iran" means in English? It means "Aryan." Odd coincidence, huh? Jeez, and they hate Jews, too, and hate Americans because we're friends with Israel. Funny how we American racists and bigots keep ending up on the "wrong side" of the racist-bigot thing, isn't it?
Hey, Tom, no offense, but don't quit your day job.
Hey, Tom, are you aware that the Japanese, in a sneak attack, just about totally anihilated the USA's entire Pacific fleet? This was just about dawn on December 7, 1941. You never heard about the attack on Pearl Harbor? That's in Hawaii. Hawaii wasn't a state then, but the US military bases there provided an irresistable target. Most of our Pacific fleet was all pretty much lumped into one harbor. The Japanese could wipe them all out in about an hour.
Not to shock you too much.... One often-quoted sailor who saw the whole thing said "it was raining sailors" when the bombs hit the ships. Guys trying to escape, and I imagine some of them -- just pieces of them falling into the sea.
See, Hitler had sort of an alliance with the Japanese. Hitler certainly didn't believe that Asians were half as worthy as Aryans, but he thought he'd let the Japanese conquer Asia and the Pacific while he [Hitler] was getting Europe under control. Then he was going to crush Japan, or at least make it clear to them who was really running things.
Hitler didn't believe America would fight. He saw the USA more as a kind of huge warehouse and factory for its European allies.
Ha-ha!! We sure taught him a thing or two, didn't we? Remember "Saving Private Ryan," Tom? That was supposed to be in Europe during World War II. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, we threw in with the Allies to help end the war there before focusing on Japan in the Pacific.
Any of this sound sort of familiar, Tom? You and I both were born after the worst was over, but I've actually spoken to people who lived through it. My uncle was a dive-bomber pilot, shooting down Japanese Kamikaze planes before they could destroy US ships.
My mother and one of my brothers actually met Audie Murphy once. He was a highly-decorated soldier in World War II. He was still a teenager when he joined up. He's buried right across the tour bus turnaround near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington Cemetary. I mean, he's really there. It really did happen. He wrote a book about it and even starred in a movie about his exploits during the war. Maybe you missed that one. I don't recall any racism in either the book or the movie, but you know how Americans are, sweeping things under the carpet and all....
And, of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- the atom bomb, that is -- those were just more proof of American racism.
I used to work with a guy named Henry who worked on The Bomb, or the undercarriage to carry it. See, they couldn't make the bomb bay doors on the plane big enough to drop the damn thing, so they had to carry it under the plane. Henry had absolutely no idea what he was engineering, or the purpose of it. He was in Baltimore and not allowed outside the place where he was working. But when he heard the news about Hiroshima, he figured it out.
I also had the opportunity to interview a guy who served on the Indianapolis. Remember "Jaws," Tom? That Steven Spielberg movie? You know Steven Spielberg. Ask him. The Indianapolis was the ship that "delivered the bomb," as Robert Shaw explained to Richard Dreyfus. So they delivered the bomb, under radio silence and all. No one -- not even the Navy -- knew where they were. Then the ship was bombed by the Japanese, and the crew ended up in the water, fodder for a shark feeding frenzy for a couple days.
When I interviewed this guy, I wasn't aware of the history of the Indianapolis. Someone told him to tell me his story. He laid his head on the table and cried like a baby. He didn't have any legs, but I don't know if that was because of the sharks or due to diabetes or something. And he was black.
But this is all about American racism against Asians, right? So I guess we can include blacks in that, right? After all, blacks can hate Asians as much as white people can, right?
Anyway, exactly what do you think was driving Hitler? And the USA stopped him. Why on earth did we do that? Had we been on the other side in Europe -- if we'd supported Hitler -- maybe right now the world would be populated entirely by white people of European descent, and not even a Jew left in the whole bunch. I guess we really blew that one, huh? We could have turned Japan -- and anyone else we don't like -- into marshmallow fluff, but we didn't for some reason.
And you know what else? Hitler had talks with people from the Middle East, too, not just the Japanese. He convinced a few of these leaders to re-name their country "Iran." Know what "Iran" means in English? It means "Aryan." Odd coincidence, huh? Jeez, and they hate Jews, too, and hate Americans because we're friends with Israel. Funny how we American racists and bigots keep ending up on the "wrong side" of the racist-bigot thing, isn't it?
Hey, Tom, no offense, but don't quit your day job.
Monday, March 8, 2010
When democrats lose their marbles...
Interesting news day today. The democrats are losing it -- their grip, their confidence, and all their marbles.
This Massa guy, a D-Rep from NY who apparently has been busted for making advances to a guy in his office, offered a 90-minute radio tirade today, saying he was framed by the White House, Ram Emanual, et. al., because he voted "no" for socialized medicine. Not sure I believe him, but then again, I have no reason not to believe him. The democrats haven't demonstrated any ethics so far, after all.
Then the Comrade gave a speech at some college near Philadelphia. Saw clips. He's tipping his hand. He said something like, "Insurance companies ration insurance to the sick and the healthy based on who can pay." And, "Insurance works for insurance companies, not for the American people."
Which I found rather baldly marxist. Sure, insurance companies "ration" insurance to people based on whether or not they can pay, just as grocery stores "ration" milk and bread to people based on who can pay, just as WalMart "rations" T-shirts and Korean-made tennis shoes to people based on who can pay, just as banks "ration" home mortgages to people based on who can pay... OOPS!
That's right. Banks were ordered by the feds to "ration" home mortgages to everyone, whether or not they could pay. And the entire financial structure of the USA ended up on the brink of total collapse. Jeez, who could see that coming? That one little marxist giveaway could mess all that up?
At any rate, the Comrade demonstrates once again his marxist ideological roots (and shoots and branches) and absolute ignorance of the free market and free enterprise.
He just doesn't get it.
Another good hoot from the other side of the world: Iran's Abracadabrajab announced today that the 9/11 terrorist attack was all a scam. It never really happened. We made it all up as an excuse to attack Afghanistan.
And this idiot has been to NYC and seen the hole where the WTC once stood. Boy, somebody needs a strait jacket.
Or maybe a couple people could use them. For their own good, of course. So they won't hurt themselves or anyone else.
This Massa guy, a D-Rep from NY who apparently has been busted for making advances to a guy in his office, offered a 90-minute radio tirade today, saying he was framed by the White House, Ram Emanual, et. al., because he voted "no" for socialized medicine. Not sure I believe him, but then again, I have no reason not to believe him. The democrats haven't demonstrated any ethics so far, after all.
Then the Comrade gave a speech at some college near Philadelphia. Saw clips. He's tipping his hand. He said something like, "Insurance companies ration insurance to the sick and the healthy based on who can pay." And, "Insurance works for insurance companies, not for the American people."
Which I found rather baldly marxist. Sure, insurance companies "ration" insurance to people based on whether or not they can pay, just as grocery stores "ration" milk and bread to people based on who can pay, just as WalMart "rations" T-shirts and Korean-made tennis shoes to people based on who can pay, just as banks "ration" home mortgages to people based on who can pay... OOPS!
That's right. Banks were ordered by the feds to "ration" home mortgages to everyone, whether or not they could pay. And the entire financial structure of the USA ended up on the brink of total collapse. Jeez, who could see that coming? That one little marxist giveaway could mess all that up?
At any rate, the Comrade demonstrates once again his marxist ideological roots (and shoots and branches) and absolute ignorance of the free market and free enterprise.
He just doesn't get it.
Another good hoot from the other side of the world: Iran's Abracadabrajab announced today that the 9/11 terrorist attack was all a scam. It never really happened. We made it all up as an excuse to attack Afghanistan.
And this idiot has been to NYC and seen the hole where the WTC once stood. Boy, somebody needs a strait jacket.
Or maybe a couple people could use them. For their own good, of course. So they won't hurt themselves or anyone else.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Weiner: Now's the time for a power grab
Just saw fast-talking socialist-opportunist Anthony Weiner (D-NY) on Fox. He wants to put the public option back into the socialized medicine bill. Megyn Kelly asked him if he was nuts. The public option was the key objection to the House bill, being a sure step towards totalitarianism in the USA.
Weiner, the weiner, says they couldn't get the bill through with the public option before because at the time they needed 60 votes in the Senate. Since now Reid and Pelosi have decided to do away with the tradtional procedures in congress that protect individual rights, the bill would need only 51 votes to pass the Senate by mob-rule rules.
Weiner is positive there are enough power-hungry despots in the Senate to get 51 votes. Looking at the list of addle-brained, uninformed, and corrupt suck-ups on the dem side of the aisle, he may be right. Certainly Reid can buy a couple extra votes from these slobs if necessary. Maybe he can arrange to have the Comrade throw them a barbecue. That ought to do it. They're so easily impressed and so unaware of anything like human rights.
So what Weiner proposes -- because he's an obnoxious, overly-aggressive opportunist (don't buy a used car or anything else from this jerk!) -- is to not shove a toilet bowl full of crap down the throats of the American public... He sees the chance to permanently attach the end of sewer pipe to every citizen and just keep pumping shit into each and every one of us non-stop. And he's sure we'll all just love it. He suggests that we would "choose" that.
I wonder where he grew up. He's so full of shit he can't even conceive of being shit-free. He's totally unaware of shit-free as a preferable way of life. Apparently he's never experienced it himself. He talks about what congress can pass, not what the public is interested in. He's a typical bullshit, shit-for-brains, cross-eyed, power-grabbing wannabe totalitarian.
And of course, the weiner knows what's best for all of us. We can't make up our own minds -- and he refuses to accept the idea that we've been down this road before with the Town Halls and all of that. The public option got a noisy and very determined "NO!" from the public already. Next time people might show up with more than hand-made signs -- if that's the only way we can get rid of these blockheads in congress.
Get it, weiner?
Who elected this asshole? They ought to be ashamed.
I think that loony who tried to attack the Pentagon last night just picked the wrong target.
Weiner, the weiner, says they couldn't get the bill through with the public option before because at the time they needed 60 votes in the Senate. Since now Reid and Pelosi have decided to do away with the tradtional procedures in congress that protect individual rights, the bill would need only 51 votes to pass the Senate by mob-rule rules.
Weiner is positive there are enough power-hungry despots in the Senate to get 51 votes. Looking at the list of addle-brained, uninformed, and corrupt suck-ups on the dem side of the aisle, he may be right. Certainly Reid can buy a couple extra votes from these slobs if necessary. Maybe he can arrange to have the Comrade throw them a barbecue. That ought to do it. They're so easily impressed and so unaware of anything like human rights.
So what Weiner proposes -- because he's an obnoxious, overly-aggressive opportunist (don't buy a used car or anything else from this jerk!) -- is to not shove a toilet bowl full of crap down the throats of the American public... He sees the chance to permanently attach the end of sewer pipe to every citizen and just keep pumping shit into each and every one of us non-stop. And he's sure we'll all just love it. He suggests that we would "choose" that.
I wonder where he grew up. He's so full of shit he can't even conceive of being shit-free. He's totally unaware of shit-free as a preferable way of life. Apparently he's never experienced it himself. He talks about what congress can pass, not what the public is interested in. He's a typical bullshit, shit-for-brains, cross-eyed, power-grabbing wannabe totalitarian.
And of course, the weiner knows what's best for all of us. We can't make up our own minds -- and he refuses to accept the idea that we've been down this road before with the Town Halls and all of that. The public option got a noisy and very determined "NO!" from the public already. Next time people might show up with more than hand-made signs -- if that's the only way we can get rid of these blockheads in congress.
Get it, weiner?
Who elected this asshole? They ought to be ashamed.
I think that loony who tried to attack the Pentagon last night just picked the wrong target.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Comrade's "Dancing Ito's"
Anyone remember the bit they used to do on the Jay Leno Tonight Show when O.J. Simpson was on trial? At least once a week, Jay would bring out a chorus line of guys dressed up like Judge Ito in judicial robes to do a little dance.
I watched the Comrade's announcement on his "new and improved" socialized medicine scheme today, and preceding him at the podium were several people dressed up in white lab coats and surgical scrubs. His version of the Dancing Ito's? I expected them to link arms and start high-kicking like the Rockettes.
Anyway, he didn't say anything new. I'm beginning to question his legendary intelligence. I could write a better bill to improve health care, and my formal legal education consists of about a half-dozen courses in political science and one course in First Amendement case law.
At any rate, he droned on for twenty minutes about the same old garbage. He brought up the issue of accountability first. Like, he says the insurance companies are solely accountable now for rising health care premiums. Like they're on an unregulated spree of sticking it to consumers to beef up their profits.
Well, with the government mandating that no one be turned away from hopsital emergency rooms, similar regulations to provide health care for illegal aliens, Medicare and Medicaid only partially funding the costs of care delivered and providers dumping the unfunded expenses on private patients and their insurance, I don't see how even the Comrade can say the insurance companies should be blamed for rising health care costs. The more you extend services to people who can't or won't pay for it, the higher the expenses are and the higher insurance premiums will be to cover those costs. With no additional profits for insurance carriers, I might add.
Tom Coburn (R-OK), I believe, made the very good point that if the government seized all the profits from all the insurance companies, it would pay for about three days of health care.
So, Comrade, that's one stupid argument you lose for several reasons, as cited above, and more exist -- like over-use of the system for trivial complaints, over-testing to fend off claims of malpractice, forcing people to buy coverage for things they'll never need, like fertility treatments for senior citizens, etc.
Direct quote, the Comrade says, "Taxpayers end up subsidizing the uninsured if they go to emergency rooms...."
So his solution: get taxpayers to fund everyone, whether or not they go to emergency rooms. Somehow the logic escapes me.
It just doesn't make any sense. Socialized medicine can't possibly cut costs unless the government institutes severe rationing policies -- and the government is the only entity that could enforce such a thing nationwide and applicable to every health care situation.
But what's really funny.... the Comrade believes that health care-by-legislation is what will "give people control of their health care."
Yeah... like right now, 57% of the population is AGAINST socialized medicine, and the Comrade wants to ram it through congress on reconciliation. IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW "THE PEOPLE" WILL BE "IN CONTROL" OF HEALTH CARE? By eliminating their control of the legislative process?
What a fool. And a liar. And a knee-jerk marxist.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Minority Leader in the House, offered a response. He made a very good point. He said, "This is not an argument between Republicans and Democrats. It's an argument between the Democrats and the American People."
He nailed it.
And if you look at the list of "Resources" on this blog, you'll see a link to a list who in the House voted for the dreaded HR3200. I didn't post a link for the Senate, because the vote was so perfectly along party lines. That is, if your senator is a democrat, they voted for the bill; if they're Republican, they voted against. I will post the same link when the current legislation goes through the House again, and also through the Senate on reconciliation.
We all need to know who to vote for and who to NOT vote for in November. If this piece of crap passes, we will need promises from any candidate that if they win, they will work to repeal it as a first order of business, before it does too much damage.
The democrats now are making a glib and very stupid argument that "once the bill passes, people will love it."
IF THIS BILL PASSES, THE PEOPLE WILL BE CRUSHED UNDER SIX YEARS OF HEAVY TAXATION BEFORE THEY SEE ANY BENEFITS FROM IT.
Remember that, congresscritters, before you vote.
I watched the Comrade's announcement on his "new and improved" socialized medicine scheme today, and preceding him at the podium were several people dressed up in white lab coats and surgical scrubs. His version of the Dancing Ito's? I expected them to link arms and start high-kicking like the Rockettes.
Anyway, he didn't say anything new. I'm beginning to question his legendary intelligence. I could write a better bill to improve health care, and my formal legal education consists of about a half-dozen courses in political science and one course in First Amendement case law.
At any rate, he droned on for twenty minutes about the same old garbage. He brought up the issue of accountability first. Like, he says the insurance companies are solely accountable now for rising health care premiums. Like they're on an unregulated spree of sticking it to consumers to beef up their profits.
Well, with the government mandating that no one be turned away from hopsital emergency rooms, similar regulations to provide health care for illegal aliens, Medicare and Medicaid only partially funding the costs of care delivered and providers dumping the unfunded expenses on private patients and their insurance, I don't see how even the Comrade can say the insurance companies should be blamed for rising health care costs. The more you extend services to people who can't or won't pay for it, the higher the expenses are and the higher insurance premiums will be to cover those costs. With no additional profits for insurance carriers, I might add.
Tom Coburn (R-OK), I believe, made the very good point that if the government seized all the profits from all the insurance companies, it would pay for about three days of health care.
So, Comrade, that's one stupid argument you lose for several reasons, as cited above, and more exist -- like over-use of the system for trivial complaints, over-testing to fend off claims of malpractice, forcing people to buy coverage for things they'll never need, like fertility treatments for senior citizens, etc.
Direct quote, the Comrade says, "Taxpayers end up subsidizing the uninsured if they go to emergency rooms...."
So his solution: get taxpayers to fund everyone, whether or not they go to emergency rooms. Somehow the logic escapes me.
It just doesn't make any sense. Socialized medicine can't possibly cut costs unless the government institutes severe rationing policies -- and the government is the only entity that could enforce such a thing nationwide and applicable to every health care situation.
But what's really funny.... the Comrade believes that health care-by-legislation is what will "give people control of their health care."
Yeah... like right now, 57% of the population is AGAINST socialized medicine, and the Comrade wants to ram it through congress on reconciliation. IS THIS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW "THE PEOPLE" WILL BE "IN CONTROL" OF HEALTH CARE? By eliminating their control of the legislative process?
What a fool. And a liar. And a knee-jerk marxist.
Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Minority Leader in the House, offered a response. He made a very good point. He said, "This is not an argument between Republicans and Democrats. It's an argument between the Democrats and the American People."
He nailed it.
And if you look at the list of "Resources" on this blog, you'll see a link to a list who in the House voted for the dreaded HR3200. I didn't post a link for the Senate, because the vote was so perfectly along party lines. That is, if your senator is a democrat, they voted for the bill; if they're Republican, they voted against. I will post the same link when the current legislation goes through the House again, and also through the Senate on reconciliation.
We all need to know who to vote for and who to NOT vote for in November. If this piece of crap passes, we will need promises from any candidate that if they win, they will work to repeal it as a first order of business, before it does too much damage.
The democrats now are making a glib and very stupid argument that "once the bill passes, people will love it."
IF THIS BILL PASSES, THE PEOPLE WILL BE CRUSHED UNDER SIX YEARS OF HEAVY TAXATION BEFORE THEY SEE ANY BENEFITS FROM IT.
Remember that, congresscritters, before you vote.
Monday, March 1, 2010
What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine
Chile had a 8.8 earthquake over the weekend. The earth is falling apart, and I'm sure the IPCC is laboring to contrive a way to blame it all on the burning of fossil fuels.
Obviously, the earth's plates are shifting. Japan suffered a large quake earlier -- offshore, so it didn't do too much damage on shore. At the other edge of the plate, Chile gets battered. And Haiti? I don't think they're anywhere near the same geologic plate, but all the plates fit together like puzzle pieces. Push one, and there's a chain reaction. Chile is more developed than Haiti and better prepared to handle a disaster, but the quake is a rather huge disaster. They have my hopes and even confidence for recovery.
But let's consider Argentina for a moment, which also suffered a huge disaster -- a man-made disaster, in fact, from which it may never recover.
On Feb. 19, I wrote a blog called "Federal intervention wrecks another maybe-good idea." In that blog, I outlined Argentina's private pension system -- like our Social Security. The citizens had to take so-much out of their incomes to set aside for their pensions, but the money was invested in private commerce and industry, managed by private investment firms. The system was launched in 1994, based on a scheme devised by free market economists. In the blog, I said I didn't know what had become of it. So I looked it up.
From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 22, 2008:
So it doesn't seem to matter which nation or which politicians -- they just can't keep their sticky, greedy little fingers out of citizens' cookie jars. What the hell is wrong with these people? And Argentina's excuse for stealing its citizens' pensions is the same song & dance we heard about the bail-outs, etc., and continue to hear about nationalizing the health care industry here.
Anyone who trusts these people must be suffering from some kind of brain damage.
Obviously, the earth's plates are shifting. Japan suffered a large quake earlier -- offshore, so it didn't do too much damage on shore. At the other edge of the plate, Chile gets battered. And Haiti? I don't think they're anywhere near the same geologic plate, but all the plates fit together like puzzle pieces. Push one, and there's a chain reaction. Chile is more developed than Haiti and better prepared to handle a disaster, but the quake is a rather huge disaster. They have my hopes and even confidence for recovery.
But let's consider Argentina for a moment, which also suffered a huge disaster -- a man-made disaster, in fact, from which it may never recover.
On Feb. 19, I wrote a blog called "Federal intervention wrecks another maybe-good idea." In that blog, I outlined Argentina's private pension system -- like our Social Security. The citizens had to take so-much out of their incomes to set aside for their pensions, but the money was invested in private commerce and industry, managed by private investment firms. The system was launched in 1994, based on a scheme devised by free market economists. In the blog, I said I didn't know what had become of it. So I looked it up.
From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 22, 2008:
BUENOS AIRES -- Hemmed in by the global financial squeeze and commodities slump, Argentina's leftist government has seemingly found a novel way to find the money to stay afloat: cracking open the piggybank of the nation's private pension system. The government proposed to nationalize the private pensions, which would provide it with much of the cash it needs to meet debt payments and avoid a second default this decade.
The move came as wealthy nations unveiled fresh steps to fight the credit crunch. The U.S. Federal Reserve said it would bolster money-market funds, which have faced withdrawals, by lending as much as $540 billion to the industry. France said it would inject $14 billion into six banks on condition they agree to increase their lending. In a sign banks were a little more willing to lend to each other, the London interbank offered rate, a benchmark for many business and consumer loans, again declined.
Argentine President Cristina Kirchner said the move to take over the private pension system was aimed at protecting investors from losses resulting from global market turmoil. Funds in the system, which is parallel to a government pension system, are administered by financial firms.
The private system has about $30 billion in assets and generates about $5 billion in new contributions each year.Pretty sad, huh? While the USA was bailing out financial institutions that were better left alone, and nationalizing the auto industry, Argentina raided its citizens' pension funds. How did they get away with it? Here's more from the Washington Post on Nov. 21, 2008:
While no one knows for sure what the government would do with the private system, economists said nationalization would let the government raid new pension contributions to cover short-term debts due in coming years.
"During its 14 years in existence, the private system never achieved what was needed. This project will permit us to undo a path of errors that were committed. It will be a difficult path, but a brave one," said Sen. Julio Miranda of Tucuman, who voted in favor of the bill.
The public system would pay out a set amount to pensioners, unlike a private system that could vacillate more widely depending on the market.
The director of Argentina's social security agency, Amado Boudou, vowed to protect the value of people's investments.
"The income from the government's new system will be better than what the private pension agencies have been giving to its members," he told Argentina's America24 television on Thursday. "We have thought for a long time that the private pension system here did not function well, and when we brought this proposal to the lawmakers, we realized that we were right because the majority of them supported it."
After the proposal was announced last month, stocks in Argentina tumbled and investors dumped Argentine bonds amid fears that the nation's economy faced severe problems and could be heading toward a second debt default, such as occurred during the country's 2001 economic collapse.
"The announced nationalization-expropriation of the Argentine pension funds constitutes one of the most blatant acts of financial piracy in the country's recent history," wrote Claudio Loser, senior fellow at the Inter-American Dialogue, in the Latin American Advisor newsletter. "The proposed expropriation would eliminate individual savings, and convert them into a pay-as-you-go system, with large funds that could be spent almost freely by the Argentine government."
Sen. Ernesto Sanz of Mendoza, who opposed the nationalization, said: "We don't have any doubt that this is violating the right to private property. Not just for us, but for all society and the world. This is clearly confiscation."
The lower house of Argentina's National Congress approved the bill earlier this month. Officials said they expect the new system to be in place by the end of the year.Let's see if I have this right. The Argentine government has suffered financial collapses in the past and fears another. So it nationalizes private pension funds because the private pension fund is "unstable." What's wrong with this picture? Seems the private pension fund was much more stable than the government economy.
So it doesn't seem to matter which nation or which politicians -- they just can't keep their sticky, greedy little fingers out of citizens' cookie jars. What the hell is wrong with these people? And Argentina's excuse for stealing its citizens' pensions is the same song & dance we heard about the bail-outs, etc., and continue to hear about nationalizing the health care industry here.
Anyone who trusts these people must be suffering from some kind of brain damage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)