Recent Articles
What Health Care Bill? Who Dies Without Insurance?
by Big Dog on Mar 1, 2010 at 12:09 Posted in Political 3 Comments
The week is beginning and we will hear a lot about health care because the Democrats have about six weeks to work something out with Republicans or they will just ram it through and hope for the best. Assuming, of course, they can get enough Democrat votes to pass it.
But Nancy Pelosi says that we don’t understand it and that there is no bill to understand.
“You think people don’t understand the bill?” asked CNN’s Candy Crowley.
“No, I don’t think — there isn’t a bill,” said Pelosi. “When we have a bill, which we will in a matter of days, then that is the bill that we can sell. Our bill, the House and the Senate bill, had major differences which we are hoping now to reconcile. And then when we have a bill — you — as I say, you can bake the pie, you can sell the pie, but you have to have a pie to sell. And when we do we will take it out there.” Washington Examiner
Maybe I am mistaken but did not the House, the one she is Speaker of, pass a health care bill? Did not the Senate pass one as well? The problem is that they cannot reconcile their two versions into something that Democrats will vote for and they certainly cannot pass it in the Senate with Scott Brown now the 41st vote.
So when things are not going well Pelosi can lie and say there is no bill when what she means is they do not have a bill that they can pass without using reconciliation (and passing is not a certainty).
This is the kind of double speak we hear all the time. It is the kind of stupidity that makes one wonder how the scatter brained Pelosi ever rose to such a high position.
They had better hurry, forty-five thousand people die each year because they don’t have health insurance. At least that is what they claim. This claim is based on an old study that did not control for factors such as how long people were without, what their health status was and their lifestyle (smoking, etc). A more recent study demonstrates that you are at no higher a risk of dying without health insurance than you are with it:
The possibility that no one risks death by going without health insurance may be startling, but some research supports it. Richard Kronick of the University of California at San Diego’s Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, an adviser to the Clinton administration, recently published the results of what may be the largest and most comprehensive analysis yet done of the effect of insurance on mortality. He used a sample of more than 600,000, and controlled not only for the standard factors, but for how long the subjects went without insurance, whether their disease was particularly amenable to early intervention, and even whether they lived in a mobile home. In test after test, he found no significantly elevated risk of death among the uninsured.
This result is not, perhaps, as shocking as it seems. Health care heals, but it also kills. Someone who lacked insurance over the past few decades might have missed taking their Lipitor, but also their Vioxx or Fen-Phen. According to one estimate, 80,000 people a year are killed just by “nosocomial infections”—infections that arise as a result of medical treatment. The only truly experimental study on health insurance, a randomized study of almost 4,000 subjects done by Rand and concluded in 1982, found that increasing the generosity of people’s health insurance caused them to use more health care, but made almost no difference in their health status.
If gaining insurance has a large effect on people’s health, we should see outcomes improve dramatically between one’s early and late 60s. Yet like the Kronick and Rand studies, analyses of the effect of Medicare, which becomes available to virtually everyone in America at the age of 65, show little benefit. In a recent review of the literature, Helen Levy of the University of Michigan and David Meltzer of the University of Chicago noted that the latest studies of this question “paint a surprisingly consistent picture: Medicare increases consumption of medical care and may modestly improve self-reported health but has no effect on mortality, at least in the short run.” The Atlantic
There is no doubt that reform is needed and there is no doubt that health care costs a lot of money. Proper reform can reduce the cost of health insurance and keep it out of government control. But government wants control and this is why studies that falsely show all these people dying without insurance are used. They are the fear aspect the left wants to inject into this to get you to sign over your health care to a government employee.
Remember that many more people who have health insurance die each year than those who do not have it and lack of coverage does not increase the risk of death.
People have access to health care in this country. The only thing that we are working on is who pays for it and how.
Government wants to take it over and control your life. By using common sense reform we can reduce the cost of health care and keep government out of our lives
Personal responsibility is a hard concept for many people especially those who have been raised to rely on the government as their parents. But personal responsibility will get us a long way in life.
In this case it will stop the progressive goal of further ruling our lives (and driving us to Socialism) and it will give us better, less expensive choices.
Just say NO to government controlled health care.
Tags: death ♦ health care ♦ lies ♦ Obama ♦ Pelosi
Obama On Car Insurance
by Big Dog on Mar 1, 2010 at 09:56 Posted in Political 2 Comments
During the dog and pony show summit about health care Obama used an analogy about when he had graduated from college and had a junker car that was covered with liability insurance. He claims to have been rear ended and that the insurance company would not pay for the repairs to his car. Obama is either lying about the incident (he made it up to make a point) or he does not understand what happened to him.
Obama probably had liability insurance only (common when a car gets old). Liability covers the other person in an accident (as in you are responsible so they pay the other driver because it is your fault). Liability does not cover the damage to your car. If Obama only had liability then the company did what Obama contracted it to do. He paid them premiums to cover him for the damage to another person’s car and that is what they did. If he had full coverage (unlikely or his car would have been covered or totaled) then he is misleading us about the result of the accident. Obama claims that this was not set up to provide real insurance, only to meet legal requirements (which are that you have to have liability insurance) but he is wrong. Unlike health insurance, people actually have a choice in what they want to buy. There are minimums established by each state but drivers are allowed to add what they want (as long as it is offered). Obama had to choose the coverage he had and he either had to know that he was only covered for damage he did to others or he is ignorant about insurance or he lied about the particulars of the accident. One more reason he should not be involved in OUR heath insurance.
But I wonder if this incident took place at all. Obama claims to have been rear ended which means the accident would have been the other person’s fault. In this case, the other person’s insurance would have been responsible for the damage to both vehicles.
No matter, Obama used this analogy to say that it is one thing to have a beat up car and get screwed over by insurance but it is quite another if you have a serious illness. These two are nothing alike.
But as long as Obama wants to compare to car insurance then he should consider the way they do business. Have minimums that must be covered and allow individuals to decide on what they want to add. Allow competition across state lines and have varying deductibles to help with costs. In addition, charge higher risk people more money for coverage.
I doubt this accident took place and it looks to me like the only folks who are going to get rear ended are Americans who have Obamacare forced upon them.
Obama made it clear he will let this get rammed through with reconciliation and that if people don’t like it then that is what elections are for.
We can start showing our dislike in 2010 by ramming them out the door.
Tags: car accident ♦ health care ♦ lies ♦ Obama
Democrats Target CIA
by Big Dog on Mar 1, 2010 at 04:38 Posted in Political Leave a comment
The Democrats do not like the CIA especially since that organization showed that Nancy Pelosi lied about her knowledge of water boarding. Maybe if we water board her we can get the truth…
Democrats tried to slip language in a bill that would hamper the efforts of the CIA and make people subject to 15 year jail terms for harsh interrogation. The language was ambiguous and would hamper our intelligence gathering efforts. To their credit, some Democrats came out against the provision which was eventually removed. But this is not likely the end of the effort:
Hoekstra said the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Intelligence chairman Rep. Silvestre Reyes, who “have such a distaste for the rank and file in the CIA,” will “use whatever tools at their disposal to find other ways to make this law.”
Hoekstra said he thinks Pelosi and Reyes, on the same day President Obama held his highly publicized health-care summit, “were hoping nobody would notice,” they were pushing the legislation through, trying to “sneak it through.”
Even several Democratic members, Hoekstra said, told him Thursday night when they realized the interrogation amendment made it into the intelligence bill that they had “no idea why the speaker and Reyes would put this in.” The DC
Maybe now is the time for the operatives in the CIA (the real ones, not the Plame types) the work on sabotaging the reelection efforts of people like Pelosi and Reyes. Perhaps the CIA could come up with convincing evidence of wrong doing or compromising situations that would help voters decide when they vote. Maybe some leaked memos around election time would be helpful especially ones that specifically show Pelosi as a liar.
It seems to me that if Pelosi and her ilk want to destroy the careers of people in the CIA then the agents in that agency have an obligation to return the favor and they certainly have the ability to make life miserable from the shadows.
It would be great to see them engage the enemy within from within.
Democrats Reauthorize Patriot Act
by Big Dog on Feb 28, 2010 at 19:10 Posted in Political 11 Comments
The Democrats opposed the Patriot Act when Bush was the president, or at least they pretended to. They went on rants about how horrible it was, what an invasion of privacy it was, blah, blah. They tried to end it and to stop it and to change it because everyone knows Bush was really Hitler and he wanted to listen to granny discuss whole grain cookie recipes to help with constipation.
As a candidate for president, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against parts of USA Patriot Act that gave the Bush administration sweeping powers to intercept phone and e-mail communications in the name of fighting terrorism with little judicial or congressional oversight, and Obama pledged to institute “robust” checks and balances if elected. PolitiFact
The Democrats wanted some provisions in there to add more oversight to the process but those did not make it in. They voted for it and Obama signed it anyway. In other words, the Democrats and Obama extended the very same Patriot Act that they bashed when Bush was president. They passed that which they claimed to have opposed. Obama signed a bill that contains something he was against when he was running for office. He signed a bill that does not do what he promised he would.
The Democratic Underground is not happy.
Neither is Counter Currents.
I guess this is not the change they were looking for or as one of them put it, the more things change…
Those sneaky Democrats added this to the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act . They did not even have the testicular fortitude to do this as a separate piece of legislation. I think it was by design. Now they can claim they had to vote for it (and Obama can claim he had to sign it) because if they did not Medicare would suffer. Republicans have cover as well. They can claim they had to vote for it because it extended the Patriot Act.
Cowards all.
Additional source:
My Way News
Tags: cowards ♦ Democrats ♦ liars ♦ Obama ♦ patriot act ♦ Republicans
Riots At Berkekey Over Cuts and Tuition Increases
by Big Dog on Feb 28, 2010 at 17:41 Posted in Political Leave a comment
The latte lapping liberals at Berkeley have their pink panties in a knot over cuts to the school that will cause a rise in tuition that the future anti war liberals will have to pay for their indoctrination. Berkeley is the place that is anti military and has hosted the code pinko crowd as it harassed military recruiters. The town had code pinko friendly rules and military unfriendly rules as recruiters were harassed and their station vandalized.
A late-night demonstration over budget cuts turned violent in Berkeley when protesters broke into a campus building, torched trash cans, smashed windows and threw rocks and bottles at police, authorities said Friday. Riehl World View
The Berkeley students are a bit upset that money from taxpayers will be cut and that their tuition will go up so they had a not so peaceful demonstration. These morons rioted, broke windows and set garbage cans on fire.
These are the people who want us to give peace a chance and stop fighting wars.
These are people who are cut from the molds of liberals who mock Tea Party members as radicals just because they want smaller government and lower taxes.
Yes, in liberal land (and to the DHS) those who peacefully protest to pay less in taxes are radical extremists and violent racist teabaggers who cannot live up to the level of civility exhibited by those on the elite left.
Yeah, and those in Berkeley lead the way.
Guess it is OK to be violent when your taxpayer assistance will be cut but not OK to peacefully protest when you want to pay less in taxes.
Only in America.
Keep in mind, the violence we have seen at protests is from those on the left. Usually lefties (and violent union thugs) attacking peaceful protesters on the right. That violence went way down when Tea Party protesters started (legally) bringing guns to the events.
Others:
Don Surber
Tags: Berkeley ♦ latte liberals ♦ tea party ♦ violence
Loading ...
Loading... 
