Saturday, October 31, 2009
Here are four smart, fiscally-responsible reforms that we can implement today to lower costs and expand access to quality care:
· Number one: let individuals and families buy health insurance across state lines.
· Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
· Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
· Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
What Sarah Palin Says
GOP Solutions for America
Read the Washington Post article here.
In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of "drift," but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be wrong.
Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made on March 27.
He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He's used up his envelopes.
Read full article here.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Even if we accept the 30,000 job number the administration put out, it is a joke when considering the $Billions of deficit this stimulus bill created. You can read more of the AP story here.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Mainstream Media Ignores Juicy ACORN Nuggets
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The EPA and EIA assumptions are naively optimistic at best, and delusional at worst. They should certainly not serve as a foundation for setting energy and climate change policy, especially when global warming science itself is coming under increasing criticism for errors, exaggerations, fabrications, "cherry-picked" and "lost" data, and computer modeling that reflects neither observations nor reality.
Climate Assumptions From Another Planet
We already have local police forces all across the country and military forces for national defense, as well as the FBI for federal crimes and the National Guard for local emergencies. What would be the role of a national police force created by Barack Obama, with all its leaders appointed by him? It would seem more like the brown shirts of dictators than like anything American.
How far the President will go depends of course on how much resistance he meets. But the direction in which he is trying to go tells us more than all his rhetoric or media spin.
Dismantling America, By Thomas Sowell
Monday, October 26, 2009
Doug Hoffman, Ordinary American
We the People are fed up with being insulted, ignored and abused as taxpayers. We will not sit by and allow this blatant power grab by the president, the administration and Congress, using socialist-structured environmental and health-care legislation. We will not tolerate the endless tsunami spending on top of an already out-of-control national debt and exponentially growing annual national deficit, which is leading this country into bankruptcy.
Congress despairs when slaves can read
Fannie and Freddie were bailed out last year, adding $5 trillion to our national debt, and put under government control. Now the news is it looks like FHA needs to be bailed out.
And, of course, low-income people who are the supposed beneficiaries of government compassion are the victims. Foreclosures in minority neighborhoods are reported to be seven times higher than the national average. We can expect the same results from government taking over health care as we've gotten from housing socialism.
This country is about freedom. There's no substitute for the fruits of personal responsibility. Giving it up for the conceit of socialism is indeed a fatal mistake. So says Star Parker. The Health Care Fatal Conceit
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Proponents of Cap & Tax legislation have promised their plan would create "green jobs", and as such help the economy. Of course, such claims are without logic or merit, and have been disproven in every instance in which they have been tried.
We previously reported on a study in Spain's King Juan Carlos University which demonstrated that in Spain, up till that point a model for President Obama, for every "green job" created, 2.2 regular jobs were lost, and only one in 10 of the newly created green jobs became a permanent job (President Obama stopped mentioning Spain after this...)
Now, the German think tank Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung has published the first independent report into Green Jobs in germany, entitled Economic impacts from the promotion of renewable energies: The German experience
"In the end, Germany's PV [solar energy] promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per-worker subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000)....Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany's first-actor status are unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counterproductive in that respect, stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies...It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany's export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in other countries such as the US."
Let's be clear here - In Germany the government subsidy required to produce just one green job can be as high as €175,000, or $US240,000. Far more than the average income, and no doubt causing massive harm on the economy.
The study authors conclude: "Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world”, we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic and environmental benefits."
All the data says that this is NOT the way forward. The only question is if Obama-Pelosi-Reid are going to follow the science and data, or if they are going to impose theirradical, ideological, job-killing agenda on the American people.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
An Assessment by John Bolton
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
"Whites are not only more anxious, but also more alienated. Big majorities of whites say the past year's turmoil has diminished their confidence in government, corporations and the financial industry. ... Asked which institution they trust most to make economic decisions in their interest, a plurality of whites older than 30 pick 'none' – a grim statement." Traditional Americans are losing their nation
Monday, October 19, 2009
It has been happening for some time now and is accelerating under Obama. Our children are becoming more and more liberal as the schools become infested with teachers with leftist ideologies. Colleges today are turning out a product that all liberals can be proud of. The question is, what can be done to protect the fundamental moral values and love of freedom that many of us grew up with. Change may already be here. Welcome to the School of Social Engineering
Since their purpose is to defend the Constitution, I would be very surprised if the ACLU doesn't offer their services in the group's defense. READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States
Who helped build the California Education Department's framework for Islamic studies? Islamist "scholars" with the Council on Islamic Education, or CIE, a Saudi-tied activist group.
The consultancy changed its name after former IBD Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry, author of "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington," exposed that its chief researcher and textbook consultant for years taught social studies at a Saudi madrassa just outside Washington.
Let's get this corrected before it spreads to the other 49. Schoolhouse Shariah
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
He states that "if the GOP takes control of Congress next year, I hope they don’t see it as a broad conservative mandate but as a simple message – voters are tired of politicians who promise change but deliver the status quo. The first party to really understand that all voters want is for the culture of Washington to change and actually works to make those changes will be the party that keeps power for more than a few election cycles. This isn’t about ideology, it’s about trust." Did “history” elect Olympia Snowe?
Natural gas offers advantages over other fossil fuels. It burns cleaner than coal, producing much less carbon dioxide. Since coal-fired power generation is responsible for a third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, replacing at least some of that coal with gas could significantly reduce such pollution. And using natural gas to replace gasoline and diesel fuel in vehicles could reduce the country's reliance on foreign oil. Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
1,000,000 Iraqis Died As a Result of Clinton's Policies... 85,000 Died During "Bush's War"
In real life, people weigh one thing against another. But in politics one declares one thing to be imperative, so the issue then becomes how we do it. In real life, all sorts of desirable things are not done, either because of other desirable things that would have to be sacrificed to do it or because of the dangers incurred in achieving the desired objective are worse than the problem we want to solve. Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com, Magic Numbers in Politics: Part II
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
It is strange that, even the NYT would include this quote in its article: “The long-term trend is toward natural gas and nuclear power, or conceivably solar power. If the energy system is left to its own devices, most of the carbon will be out of it by 2060 or 2070.” Strange that we cannot develop our own natural gas fields or increase our use of nuclear power here in the USA due to liberal green fanaticism.
Use Energy, Get Rich And Save The Planet
One of the most often repeated assertions from TeamObama about their proposed “reform” of health care has been that individuals would be able to keep their current health insurance if they so desired. But this, to employ Joe Wilson’s colorful characterization, is a lie. As Hinderaker shows, the Baucus plan before the Senate, combining a “weak mandate” to buy insurance with “a strong requirement on the insurance industry that it insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions or state of health,” would “devastate” the private insurance industry.
What is meant by a “weak mandate” is that, in the current version of the Baucus bill, there is no requirement to buy health insurance at all until after 2013, and by 2017 the penalty for failing to buy health insurance still amounts to only about 15% of the cost of the insurance. Now, think about it: if you know that you don’t have to buy health insurance when you are young and healthy, but if you should get sick, or just get older, you can apply for health insurance at any time and it will be illegal for the insurance company to turn you down, what would you do? Obviously, you would defer buying insurance unless and until you get sick. This means that the pool of those who are insured will be lower quality, and the cost therefore higher for everyone who buys insurance. It is as though you could wait until you die, and then your heirs can buy life insurance on you.
As Hinderaker observes, “This isn’t reform, it is stupidity.”Crunch Time for Health Care: Now It’s Up to Us
Excerpt: Welcome to the new age of Democrat civility. We have Democrat Senator Barbara Boxer comparing Republicans to the Taliban. We have Democrat Congressman Alan "Dick" Grayson comparing Republicans to Nazis. We have Democrat Congressman Brian Baird calling Tea-Party Patriots "brownshirts." We have the Democrat House Leadership calling critics of their Health Care Program "Un-American." Add to this hall of shame Democrat Congressman Dennis Moore, (D-KS), who referred to his Republic challenger --- a Marine Veteran who lost his leg to an IED in Iraq --- as "white trash."
Monday, October 12, 2009
Charles Krauthammer's essay, although rather lengthy, spells out the direction the liberal left is taking this country on the world stage. Irreparable harm is being done to the world's balance of power which only a reversal of our domestic spending deficits and defense drawbacks can cure. Decline Is a Choice: The New Liberalism and the end of American ascendancy. by Charles Krauthammer 10/19/2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
IT'S AN ODD Nobel Peace Prize that almost makes you embarrassed for the honoree. In blessing President Obama, the Nobel Committee intended to boost what it called his "extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." A more suitable time for the prize would have been after those efforts had borne some fruit.
It is no criticism of Mr. Obama to note that, barely nine months into his presidency, his goals are still goals. His peace prize came in the same week that Washington was consumed by a divisive debate over how to win a war in Afghanistan; the Obama administration announced a probable delay in its plan to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; and Israel's foreign minister told the world that the Middle East peace Mr. Obama has been promoting is not coming soon. The Nobel Committee's claim that Mr. Obama has "created a new climate in international politics" is about as realistic as last week's "Saturday Night Live" parody skewering the president for failing to deliver, already, on a series of campaign promises.
We understand how much Scandinavians and other Europeans welcomed the end of the Bush administration; in that sense, Mr. Obama's prize confirms that his ascension to the presidency has improved America's image in the world, or at least parts of it. But in offering this latest Euro-celebration of the 2008 election, the Norwegian committee has also demonstrated a certain cluelessness about America. If anything animates Mr. Obama's critics in this country, it is the impression that he is the focus of a global cult of personality. This prize, at this time, only feeds that impression, and thus does him no favors politically.
The Nobel Committee's decision is especially puzzling given that a better alternative was readily apparent. This year, hundreds of thousands of ordinary people in Iran braved ferocious official violence to demand their right to vote and to speak freely. Dozens were killed, thousands imprisoned. One of those killed was a young woman named Neda Agha-Soltan; her shooting by thugs working for the Islamist theocracy, captured on video, moved the world. A posthumous award for Neda, as the avatar of a democratic movement in Iran, would have recognized the sacrifices that movement has made and encouraged its struggle in a dark hour. Democracy in Iran would not only set a people free, it would also dramatically improve the chances for world peace, since the regime that murdered her is pursuing nuclear weapons in defiance of the international community.
Announcing Friday that he would accept the award, Mr. Obama graciously offered to share it with "the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets." But the mere fact that he avoided mentioning either Neda's name or her country, presumably out of consideration for the Iranian regime with which he is attempting to negotiate, showed the tension that sometimes exists between "diplomacy and cooperation between peoples" on the one hand, and advocacy of human rights on the other. The Nobel Committee could have spared Mr. Obama this dilemma if it had given Neda the award instead of him.
Friday, October 9, 2009
This process of adding items, that have no relation to the main legislation, to popular bills is a common occurrence. This policy must be stopped for any control of spending to be realized. Boehner: ‘Just Plain Wrong' for Democrats to Attach Hate Crimes Measure to Defense Authorization Bill
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
As the article states: It is becoming increasingly clear that the main problem facing this country is the growing state. It is threatening to smother this nation as it usurps ever more of our income and liberties while all the while it spends with insatiable abandon. We must admit that we bear a share of blame for the current situation. Let us resolve to never again become heedless of the danger of statism at home. Let us stay vigilant and remember Ronald Reagan's maxim: "Government is the problem, not the solution." They Call us Leftists By Vasko Kohlmayer
Considerations, similar to those enumerated in his article, explain why we already have specialized courts without juries for vaccine liability, workers' compensation, bankruptcy, and tax cases. To make health care available and affordable for everyone, we need tort reform to eliminate the need for defensive medicine and allow doctors to do what they have been trained to do efficiently. Wasting Billions, Doing Injustice
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Gerald E. Harmon, MD, FAAFP: Health care reform
Congress and the Administration consider and pass hundreds of pieces of legislation and rulings annually and it is intriguing to note what captures the most attention of the media and the electorate.
We are quite used to our political leaders addressing international relations, national defense, etc., but we always pay the most attention when the legislators discuss very personal issues such as changes in taxes, changing and expanding the role of the federal government, or changes in health care.
Health care reform actually covers all these issues -- it affects our taxes, it potentially greatly expands the role of the federal government, and it sure is very personal.
So no surprise that everyone gets nervous and quite interested in Congress as they consider changing the system. And the need to change the system is undeniable -- the current course is not sustainable financially.
The real problem before America right now is how much of the system to change immediately (if any) and how much change needs to be incremental with significant discussion and debate and a realization of the short and long-term effects of our actions.
If there were enough resources/money available to cover our needs and commitments we would not be having the current debate.
However, we have a "perfect storm" of conditions moving us inexorable to reconfigure the health care industry in America.
We have an aging population demographic, a marked reduction in the primary care infrastructure of our system, an epidemic of unhealthy lifestyles highlighted by obesity and inactivity, and what can only be described as overconsumption if not exploitation of existing health care funding.
If those storm conditions were not bad enough consider that we find ourselves in a huge economic downturn so our resources are even more strained with an increased demand for capacity that does not exist.
What can we do quickly now and more deliberately later? There are some pretty straightforward answers that have been studied and proposed by smart people for many years and I think they deserve serious attention.
Even using the most favorable budget numbers from the Congressional Budget Office the leading proposals from Congress (HR 3200 and the Senate Finance Committee wording) increase the tax burden on Americans by almost $1 trillion-this change itself is unsustainable and cannot be seriously supported by our voters.
Let's take smaller bites at this apple and work at a viable solution over time.
For instance, it may be a "bridge too far" to attempt to provide universal coverage for all uninsured citizens -- many of the 47 million number that are frequently quoted as being uninsured would remain without viable health care funding under almost any legislative proposal now before Congress and yet the expenditures would be hundreds of billions of dollars for little gain.
We can, however, provide advanceable, refundable tax credits to families and individuals who meet economic criteria such as 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level, and allow those credits to be used to purchase health care coverage.
Estimates are that we could reduce the numbers of uninsured by as much as 20 percent using this straightforward method and yet the overall impact on taxpayer obligation would be minimal.
We must face the fact that expanding health insurance for folks will not necessarily increase access to care.
Our nation has allowed our Primary Care safety net (family physicians, internists, pediatricians, obstetricians, etc.) to suffer marked reductions in staffing and we find ourselves critically short of those professionals.
Massachusetts many years ago expanded health care coverage to all its citizens and found the state unable to provide even minimal primary care for those newly covered.
Many of the bills currently in Congress pay lip service to more primary care doctors but really offer no meaningful resourcing to achieving the goal, instead using nondescript terminology such as "quality improvement" and "pay for performance" to indicate that providers can be enticed to enter primary care fields with the expectation of higher rewards somewhere down the line of government funding.
Furthermore, we can make health care insurance more affordable if we allow transparency in policy pricing and coverage across state lines and allow high risk pools that provide coverage for pre-existing conditions to be formed nationally-this has been done in 35 states successfully with funding for the pools from multiple sources, including fees on insurance providers and agencies that market in the states.
And if we allow federal anti-trust relief then health care providers such as physicians and hospitals can openly market their prices to the consumers and the health insurance companies and allow free market pressures to drive many prices down.
Currently, it is against federal law for individual doctors, practices, or hospitals to have even informal discussions about fees so there is little change of competition for market share or reduction in costs to the consumer.
And although many in Congress and the President have openly spoken against true Medical Liability Reform it cannot be denied that a large amount of our health care resources are devoted to what we call "defensive medicine" where testing and investigation and even some treatment is driven by the fear of litigation rather than by a clearly defined benefit for the patient.
Existing federal law mandates medical care and evaluation for patients who present to our nation's emergency rooms yet it does not resource that care nor does it provide any liability relief for any subsequent allegations of bad medicine or even unpreventable bad outcomes in an imperfect system.
Some reasonable estimates of the cost of such truly unnecessary medical care run as high as 180 billion dollars annually.
Even if we saved only half of that amount we would realize a savings of 900 billion dollars over the next decade if we considered real liability reform efforts such as medical courts, loser pays, etc.
Eventually we can enact some of the more far-reaching ideas contained in the draft legislation from Congress and the Senate-such things as mandated Electronic Medical Records, as Comparative Effectiveness Research, and rewards for health lifestyles and preventive medicine.
And we certainly need to address strategies to strengthen the existing Medicare program including the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and the Supplementary Medical Trust Funds that resource Medicare A (hospital inpatient) and Medicare B and D (doctor and outpatient charges, durable medical equipment, and pharmacy) commitments respectively.
All of the considerations outlined here have been touched upon in some form at town hall meetings, in editorials of leading newspapers, and in many Congressional hearings and committees.
The current health care "crisis" did not occur over a short period of time but rather over decades and the crisis deserves a measured attempt at management and reconciliation, not a hastily configured attempt at a long-term fix such as currently proposed by the Senate Finance Committee (that chaired by Senator Baucus) or by the 1000+ page House legislation known as HR 3200.
Let us take an incremental approach that will not markedly expand the role of the federal government and that will reduce health care expenditures in the short term while establishing qualified studies and commissions/committees to seriously address long term solutions bereft of traditional partisan politics that serve only those currently in power.
My patients -- my American colleagues and taxpayers-- deserve such a measured and thoughtful approach.
Let us not allow the mantra of "never let a crisis go to waste" to force bad legislation upon us.
Gerald E. Harmon, MD, FAAFP, Pawleys Island
Past President, SC Medical Association
Member, Council on Medic
It appears that Obama's penchant for apologizing and running our economy into the ground is working (except for the Olympics), the popularity of the USA is rising. Nobody Likes Us? Who Cares?
Friday, October 2, 2009
Recognizing the internal uprising after the last rigged election in Iran, it appears that there is considerable unrest and a hunger for more freedom throughout the country. Maybe some open support for their cause could awaken enough people for them to solve the problem from within.
This is a sample of what President Obama could say. What Obama Should Say To Iran
Thursday, October 1, 2009
One of my friends sent me the following:
: Another unbelievable fact
This is a perfect example why I refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN or NSNBC. Fox was the only news to report this (20 Aug 2009).
"Today even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for oil for this country. He signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil. The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and not the USA. The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever.
Wait it gets more interesting.
Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American Billionaire, George Soros, Liberal businessman who is a radical left wing supporter, finances MoveOn.org as well as other liberal programs and was President Obama's largest and most generous supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was on any of the other news networks.
Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. I did not think this was the type of change Obama meant. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. I wonder what President Obama is getting out of this?.....